Photo: Tesla/edited by autoevolution
In February, Tesla tried to anticipate the bad publicity a new racism lawsuit would generate. The EV maker attacked the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s (DFEH) decision to sue it as a “misguided” action, indirectly threatening to leave the state.
The department struck back, saying Tesla moved its headquarters to Texas to avoid accountability. Since then, the DFEH changed its name to the Department of Civil Rights (DCR), and Tesla asked California's Office of Administrative Law (OAL) to check if the department wasn't rushing investigations without properly following requirements. The OAL declined to do so.
Reuters saw a copy of OAL’s reply letter, and the office did not give Tesla any explanation why it would not review the DCR’s procedures. On the other hand, we have no idea if Tesla presented any valid argument to support its request. All Tesla has apparently said was that the DCR did not notify it about the racism cases it discovered and did not give it any chance to settle them outside of court.
By that, Tesla probably meant it wanted to take its racism cases to arbitration. The company tries to avoid courts with former employees as much as possible. It recently did that with Alexander Yatskov, an engineer Tesla accused of stealing trade secrets related to the Project Dojo. Yatskov wants his case in court so he can publicly clear his name. Cristina Balan and Karl Hansen are two other former Tesla employees that the EV maker does not want to go to court.
Apparently, the OAL considers that the EV maker was just exercising its “jus sperniandi,” or its right to whine. All that OAL said was that Tesla should do it in front of a judge if it really thought it was right. In other words, it indirectly told the EV maker to get ready to litigate. Tesla is also doing that.
According to Reuters, the EV maker filed a motion to dismiss the case. A California state judge will appreciate that motion on August 24. Tesla used the same arguments OAL already heard. For the EV maker, the DCR didn’t notify it of any of the cases it discovered and did not give it a chance to settle.
That may have to do with the fact that the DCR did not find one or two racism situations at the Fremont factory: it said they were hundreds. The department classified that environment as a place of “systematic racial discrimination and harassment.” We suspect the state judge may want to hear a bit more about that before dismissing anything.
Reuters saw a copy of OAL’s reply letter, and the office did not give Tesla any explanation why it would not review the DCR’s procedures. On the other hand, we have no idea if Tesla presented any valid argument to support its request. All Tesla has apparently said was that the DCR did not notify it about the racism cases it discovered and did not give it any chance to settle them outside of court.
By that, Tesla probably meant it wanted to take its racism cases to arbitration. The company tries to avoid courts with former employees as much as possible. It recently did that with Alexander Yatskov, an engineer Tesla accused of stealing trade secrets related to the Project Dojo. Yatskov wants his case in court so he can publicly clear his name. Cristina Balan and Karl Hansen are two other former Tesla employees that the EV maker does not want to go to court.
Apparently, the OAL considers that the EV maker was just exercising its “jus sperniandi,” or its right to whine. All that OAL said was that Tesla should do it in front of a judge if it really thought it was right. In other words, it indirectly told the EV maker to get ready to litigate. Tesla is also doing that.
According to Reuters, the EV maker filed a motion to dismiss the case. A California state judge will appreciate that motion on August 24. Tesla used the same arguments OAL already heard. For the EV maker, the DCR didn’t notify it of any of the cases it discovered and did not give it a chance to settle.
That may have to do with the fact that the DCR did not find one or two racism situations at the Fremont factory: it said they were hundreds. The department classified that environment as a place of “systematic racial discrimination and harassment.” We suspect the state judge may want to hear a bit more about that before dismissing anything.
Google News