Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiff was hired by Tesla as a production associate at its Fremont facility on September 14, 2020. He subsequently transferred to Tesla's Ontario facility in October 2020, and then to Tesla's San Bernardino facility in spring of 2021. He had served honorably as a Private First Class in the Army National Guard and had accumulated over 30 years of progressively responsible experience in security and loss prevention, with multiple supervisory and managerial positions throughout his career.

  In January 2021, Tesla formally recognized plaintiff's strong performance. In his January 23, 2021 performance review, plaintiff's supervisor, noted in the evaluation that Mr. Jones “[Met] Expectations” or “Excellent Performance” in every category, commending his “excellent work ethic,” dependability, and teamwork. The review specifically noted that plaintiff was “always willing to help any team member,” “always on time,” and “ready to give us 100 percent of his effort daily.”

  Despite his strong performance, plaintiff contended that he was not treated fairly. During his employment, his supervisor directed him to assist with the relocation of one of respondent's industrial facilities – a task entirely outside his regular duties. Plaintiff complied and served in a de facto “lead” role for several months, performing higher-level responsibilities without any corresponding increase in pay. When he inquired about being formally promoted to an actual official lead, his request was summarily denied. Plaintiff repeatedly applied for lead material handler positions throughout early 2021. He was motivated to advance his career and believed that he was qualified for the role but was consistently rejected for these positions.

  When the positions were initially posted in spring 2021, plaintiff complained that “everybody did not have an equal opportunity to apply for the lead position because it hasn't been put up on the board.” After HR intervention and Tesla's decision to waive the six-month eligibility requirement, plaintiff applied again but was still denied. Plaintiff first spoke up about racial discrimination in April 2021, when he observed that African American employees were systematically denied promotional opportunities, training, and equal treatment at Tesla's San Bernardino facility.

  On April 23, 2021, HR partner Byrnnye Behrens acknowledged plaintiff's complaint in an email, stating: “the investigation into racial discrimination promotional practices at San Bernardino, California location is… open.”

  The final rejection came on June 1, 2021, when Jacki Charlberg sent a message during plaintiff's interview stating she wanted to offer the lead position to another candidate, confirming, “Mr. Jones was not getting this position.” 

  In June 2021, he, and other Black employees, filed additional discrimination complaints regarding the ongoing disparate treatment of African American employees, after which the same supervisor who had praised plaintiff's “excellent work ethic” began issuing multiple written warnings. Within one week in July 2021, Jones received three disciplinary write-ups in rapid succession.  On July 21, 2021, plaintiff received a final written warning.

  On July 20, 2021, plaintiff submitted a Company Employee Incident Report documenting his distress. On July 21, 2021 - just one day after speaking up about discrimination again – plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim documenting the severe stress, anxiety, chest pains, elevated blood pressure, and depression he suffered due to Tesla's alleged harassment and intimidation. His medical provider at the occupational health clinic specifically recommended transferring plaintiff “to a different department to avoid any further [conflict] with the supervisor.” This medical recommendation directly corroborates plaintiff's discrimination complaints and demonstrates that Tesla's workplace harassment was severe enough to cause diagnosable stress-related injuries requiring accommodation.

  On October 5, 2021, while plaintiff was dealing with the ongoing stress, he suffered a separate physical workplace injury to his right knee. According to witness Julian Vasquez's statement, he “saw Eddie Jones walking backwards and nearly falling off the truck and onto the ramp. He didn't fall, but he caught his balance and he landed awkwardly on his right leg.” Plaintiff's knee swelled up immediately, and he required ongoing medical treatment and work restrictions. Plaintiff was placed on medical leave from October 6 through 14, 2021, due to his knee injury, and returned to work with ongoing restrictions, including limitations that he “may squat/kneel occasionally.”

  Two weeks after returning from his knee injury leave, plaintiff made additional discrimination complaints to Tesla's Employee Relations department. On October 28, 2021, Brian Quillen documented plaintiff's new concerns about “Retaliation and Discrimination,” including that Jacki Charlberg gave him an unfair performance evaluation because she had only supervised him for two months, and that only he and Joe, “the two older employees,” were told they would be written up for using lift equipment without training – while other employees used the equipment without consequence.

  When asked about the basis of discrimination, plaintiff specified that the discrimination was due to age and race/color. Plaintiff also disclosed he had been off work a couple times due to stress and requested that “there needs to be sensitivity training by a professional.”

  On November 3, 2021, HR manager Byrnnye Behrens sent a Teams message to supervisors stating: “We need to prepare a summary of all infraction/violations Eddie has committed since his return from LOA. We are building our case for termination.”

  On or around November 1, 2021, plaintiff's wife tested positive for COVID-19, requiring plaintiff to quarantine for 10 days. Tesla's contact tracers confirmed this, and stressed that “Eddie will need to quarantine for ten days after his wife received her positive test results,” placing him on COVID quarantine leave from November 1-10, 2021. Plaintiff returned to work on November 12, with continuing restrictions from his October 5 injury. Three days later, on November 15, 2021, Tesla terminated plaintiff's employment.

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  The timing of disciplinary actions – occurring immediately after plaintiff's protected activity – creates an unmistakable pattern of retaliation that Tesla cannot legitimately explain away. The stress from Tesla's retaliatory campaign took a severe toll on plaintiff's health.

  The discrimination plaintiff witnessed was extensive and systemic. African American employees were routinely denied advancement and opportunities for skill development. When lead material handler and shipping coordinator positions became available, qualified African American employees were repeatedly passed over in favor of less qualified candidates. They were also excluded from equal training opportunities, including training on the Juel system and forklift certifications, while employees of other races received comprehensive instruction. In addition, African American employees were required to share equipment that was individually assigned to others. But even more blatant were comments by Tesla's non-black managers/leads, using such racial insults as “my nigga” and “This is not the streets,” the latter being made during a team meeting.

  Tesla eliminated plaintiff while he maintained disability restrictions and swiftly after returning from protected leave of absence – mere weeks after he made additional discrimination complaints.

  Tesla's treatment of plaintiff was not isolated. Plaintiff's termination occurred during Tesla's unprecedented discrimination crisis. Just three months after his November 2021 termination, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) filed a comprehensive lawsuit against Tesla following a three-year investigation into hundreds of worker complaints. The DFEH found that Tesla operated a “racially segregated workplace” where Black workers were “subjected to racial slurs and discriminated against in job assignments, discipline, pay, and promotion.” The agency documented Tesla facilities where “swastikas, `KKK,' the n-word, and other racist writings [] etched onto walls of restrooms, restroom stalls, lunch tables, and even factory machinery,” with areas staffed by Black workers referred to as “the dark side.” Over thirty (30) lawsuits and claims during the same period revealed identical patterns, imputing knowledge of widespread discrimination on the part of Tesla. In one, the worker alleged “virtually every restroom in Tesla's Fremont facility contained writings or carvings of racist symbols and slurs,” and was terminated after reporting racial discrimination. In another, the worker was fired within two hours after being accused of “protecting and/or favoring minorities,” with Tesla HR stating the termination decision “came from higher up.” Tesla's own HR personnel acknowledged that the San Bernardino facility where plaintiff worked had more racial discrimination complaints than other locations. The company's CEO advised workers to be “thick-skinned” about racial harassment, while Tesla's investigations were found to be “not compliant with law.”

  Plaintiff's experience -- racial harassment, denial of advancement, retaliation following complaints, and swift termination – was not anomalous but part of Tesla's documented systematic approach to African American employees who challenged discriminatory treatment.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Tesla's official reason for its decision to fire plaintiff was “performance issues.”