California defeats Tesla’s attempt to throw out racial discrimination lawsuit

加州法院驳回特斯拉撤销种族歧视诉讼的请求

Over four years after a California agency sued Tesla over an alleged pattern of racial discrimination, a judge has dismissed Tesla’s motion to throw out the lawsuit. The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) said today that the Alameda County Superior Court order clears a path for the case to go to trial, which is currently scheduled for July 20. 在加州政府机构因特斯拉涉嫌存在系统性种族歧视而提起诉讼四年多后，法官驳回了特斯拉撤销该诉讼的动议。加州民权部（CRD）今日表示，阿拉米达县高等法院的裁决为案件进入审判阶段扫清了障碍，审判目前定于7月20日进行。

Tesla “employment practices remain rooted in some of the ugliest relics of the past,” CRD Director Kevin Kish said. “Black workers are paid less for their work. They are subjected to racist slurs. They face threats of being fired for speaking out… We look forward to having our day in court to hold Tesla accountable and to protect the rights of workers in our state.” CRD局长凯文·基什（Kevin Kish）表示：“特斯拉的雇佣行为依然根植于过去最丑陋的残余之中。黑人员工的劳动报酬更低，他们遭受种族歧视言论的侮辱，并因发声而面临被解雇的威胁……我们期待在法庭上让特斯拉承担责任，并保护我们州工人的权利。”

The lawsuit alleges widespread discrimination, especially at Tesla’s Fremont factory, and seeks financial damages and injunctive relief. At trial, the case may include claims of discrimination going back to June 2018. The judge partially granted Tesla’s request to block claims under the statute of limitations, but only for incidents that happened before June 18, 2018. 该诉讼指控特斯拉存在广泛的歧视行为，特别是在其弗里蒙特工厂，并寻求经济赔偿和禁令救济。在审判中，案件可能涵盖追溯至2018年6月的歧视指控。法官部分批准了特斯拉根据诉讼时效驳回部分指控的请求，但仅限于2018年6月18日之前发生的事件。

The CRD sued Tesla in March 2022 after investigating for three years. The suit alleged “harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, as well as other claims, against the company’s Black employees,” the CRD said today. “These allegations included the pervasive use of racial slurs, often in the presence of, or even by, supervisors and managers. The use of the n-word was allegedly especially pervasive at the Fremont factory, which Tesla workers, supervisors, and management alike referred to as the ‘plantation,’ with Black workers as ‘slaves.’” CRD在经过三年的调查后，于2022年3月起诉了特斯拉。CRD今日表示，诉讼指控该公司“针对黑人员工存在骚扰、歧视、报复及其他不当行为”。“这些指控包括普遍使用种族歧视词汇，且往往是在主管和经理在场的情况下，甚至由他们本人说出。据称，在弗里蒙特工厂，‘黑鬼’（n-word）一词的使用尤为普遍，特斯拉的员工、主管和管理层甚至将工厂称为‘种植园’，并将黑人员工称为‘奴隶’。”

The CRD alleged that “Black workers were relegated to labor-intensive jobs, segregated, and paid less than non-Black workers,” and “faced retaliation in the form of overly harsh performance reviews, reprimands, and termination” when they complained. The agency accused Tesla of failing to stop the racial harassment and discrimination despite knowing about the problem. CRD指控称，“黑人员工被分配到劳动强度大的工作岗位，遭到隔离，且薪酬低于非黑人员工”，并且在投诉时“面临过度严苛的绩效评估、训斥和解雇等报复行为”。该机构指责特斯拉在明知问题存在的情况下，未能阻止种族骚扰和歧视。

Tesla evidence not enough to prevent trial

特斯拉提供的证据不足以阻止审判

Superior Court Judge Peter Borkon said in yesterday’s ruling that at this stage of the proceeding, “the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and resolves any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in their favor.” Tesla, the defendant, is seeking a motion for summary judgment and, as such, must submit undisputed facts that are sufficient to defeat the claims. 高等法院法官彼得·博尔孔（Peter Borkon）在昨日的裁决中表示，在诉讼的现阶段，“法院以最有利于原告的角度审视证据，并将任何证据上的疑点或歧义作有利于原告的解释。”作为被告的特斯拉正在寻求简易判决动议，因此必须提交足以驳回这些指控的无争议事实。

The allegations include racial harassment, discriminatory assignments, pay inequality, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, and unequal treatment in areas including discipline, promotions, firings, and constructive discharges. Borkon denied Tesla’s attempt to throw out the claims, saying the carmaker did not submit undisputed evidence that would shift the burden of proof to the CRD. 这些指控包括种族骚扰、歧视性工作分配、薪酬不平等、报复行为、未能防止歧视和骚扰，以及在纪律处分、晋升、解雇和变相解雇等方面的不平等对待。博尔孔拒绝了特斯拉撤销指控的请求，称这家汽车制造商未能提交足以将举证责任转移给CRD的无争议证据。

Borkon’s analysis was most extensive on the claims of harassment, discriminatory assignments, and retaliation. On harassment, he wrote: The evidence indicates that “Of the 240 declarations submitted by plaintiffs, all stated that they heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory” and “Of the 228 declarations submitted by Tesla, 99 heard the n-word at the Tesla Fremont factory.” That suggests that out of 12,000 Black workers at least 339 (2.8%) heard the n-word at work. 博尔孔对骚扰、歧视性工作分配和报复指控的分析最为详尽。关于骚扰，他写道：证据表明，“在原告提交的240份声明中，所有人都表示在特斯拉弗里蒙特工厂听到过‘黑鬼’一词”，而“在特斯拉提交的228份声明中，有99人表示在弗里蒙特工厂听到过该词。”这表明在1.2万名黑人员工中，至少有339人（2.8%）在工作中听到过该词。

Tesla’s evidence did not shift the burden to plaintiff CRD. First, CRD’s claims alleges harassment state-wide but Tesla’s evidence appears to be limited to the Fremont factory. Second, Tesla’s evidence appears to be a non-representative sample from the Tesla factory, so it cannot reasonably be extrapolated to the whole Tesla factory. Third, Tesla’s evidence defines the minimum number of Black workers who heard the n-word at work rather than the total number of Black workers who heard the n-word at work. 特斯拉的证据未能将举证责任转移给原告CRD。首先，CRD的指控涉及全州范围内的骚扰，但特斯拉的证据似乎仅限于弗里蒙特工厂。其次，特斯拉的证据似乎只是来自该工厂的一个非代表性样本，因此不能合理地推及整个工厂。第三，特斯拉的证据仅定义了在工作中听到该词的黑人员工的最低人数，而非实际总人数。

According to Borkon’s ruling, Tesla asserted that its written policies and procedures and its training and orientation programs show there was no pattern or practice of harassment, and that Tesla took immediate and appropriate action in response to incidents of harassment. Borkon said he “is not persuaded that the existence of written policies alone is sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that there was no harassment or discrimination.” 根据博尔孔的裁决，特斯拉声称其书面政策、程序以及培训和入职项目表明公司不存在骚扰的模式或惯例，且特斯拉在应对骚扰事件时采取了及时且适当的行动。博尔孔表示，他“并不认为仅凭书面政策的存在就足以初步证明不存在骚扰或歧视。”

Discrimination and retaliation claims

歧视与报复指控

Borkon decided that there are triable issues of facts on whether Tesla knew there was a hostile work environment and on whether Tesla took immediate and appropriate action. He said that Tesla is incorrect to argue that the California agency must present evidence that people acting in concert created a pattern or practice of race harassment. 博尔孔裁定，关于特斯拉是否知晓存在敌对工作环境，以及特斯拉是否采取了及时且适当的行动，这些事实问题均可进入审判程序。他指出，特斯拉认为加州政府机构必须提供证据证明有人串通制造了种族骚扰的模式或惯例，这种观点是错误的。

“What is relevant is whether there was a pattern or practice of race harassment. Assuming there was such a pattern or practice at Tesla (whether by isolated individuals or by persons acting in concert), then the issue turns to whether Tesla was on notice and took immediate and appropriate action,” he wrote. 他写道：“相关的问题在于是否存在种族骚扰的模式或惯例。假设特斯拉确实存在这种模式或惯例（无论是通过个别人员还是串通人员），那么问题的关键就转变为特斯拉是否知情，以及是否采取了及时且适当的行动。”

On the allegation of discriminatory assignments, Tesla claimed that the state agency has no evidence to prove discrimination in hiring, promotion, assignment, and compensation practices. But according to the judge, “Tesla’s assertion that CRD has no evidence is not undisputed evidence that CRD cannot prove an element of the claim,” and “Tesla did not present its own expert statistical testimony with a prima facie showing that there was no discrimination.” 关于歧视性工作分配的指控，特斯拉声称该州机构没有证据证明其在招聘、晋升、分配和薪酬实践中存在歧视。但法官认为，“特斯拉声称CRD没有证据，这并不等同于CRD无法证明指控要素的无争议证据”，且“特斯拉并未提交其专家统计证词来初步证明不存在歧视。”

Tesla provided data on the race of employees, but “Tesla provides no statistical information about the applicant pool or about pay, promotions, assignments, discipline, termination, or other matters,” Borkon wrote. Tesla disputed retaliation claims by citing evidence from a related action lawsuit, Vaughn v. Tesla. The company said that “only 3 percent of witnesses [who provided declarations in Vaughn] allege any adver[se action].” 博尔孔写道，特斯拉提供了员工种族数据，但“并未提供关于申请人库，或关于薪酬、晋升、分配、纪律处分、解雇或其他事项的统计信息。”特斯拉通过引用相关诉讼《Vaughn诉Tesla案》中的证据来反驳报复指控。该公司称，“（在Vaughn案中提供声明的）证人中只有3%的人声称遭受了任何不利行动。”