Diaz v. Tesla, Inc.

Background

During jury selection, Diaz challenged two of Tesla’s peremptory strikes—the strikes that allow a party to remove prospective jurors without stating a formal cause. The challenges were based on Batson v. Kentucky, which prohibits purposeful race-based use of those strikes, and on a later Supreme Court decision applying that rule to civil cases.

After challenges for cause and hardship, fifteen prospective jurors remained, including two Black jurors. Tesla had three peremptory challenges and used two of them against those two jurors. The court found that this was enough to make an initial showing that the strikes could have been based on race.

Juror 26

Tesla’s main explanation for striking Juror 26 was that counsel had difficulty understanding him. The court found that explanation implausible and untrue. The court stated that Juror 26 spoke at a normal volume, that his answers were understandable, and that counsel did not identify a specific instance showing otherwise. The court also compared Juror 26 with non-Black jurors who were seated, including Jurors 6 and 13, whom the court, counsel, and court reporter had repeatedly had difficulty understanding. Juror 26’s answers were not similarly difficult to understand.

Tesla also argued that Juror 26 had been called the N-word at a past job. The court held that this was not a race-neutral reason because it was directly tied to Juror 26’s race. Tesla later argued that the strike was also based on the manager’s failure to respond to that incident. The court found that explanation less credible because it was raised only after the court questioned Tesla’s original explanation, was partly based on race, and did not fit the treatment of Juror 4, a non-Black juror whose workplace concerns had also gone unaddressed.

Considering all the circumstances, the court found that Tesla’s explanations for striking Juror 26 were pretextual, meaning they were stated reasons that did not genuinely explain the strike. The court sustained Diaz’s Batson challenge to that strike, and Juror 26 was ultimately seated.

Juror 33

The court reached a different conclusion about Tesla’s other challenged strike, involving Juror 33. Tesla said that Juror 33’s mother had been mistreated at work, that he had a friend who worked at Tesla’s Fremont plant, that he had been offered a job at Tesla, and that his friend had been wrongfully terminated by Tesla in his view. The court found these reasons facially legitimate and concluded that they showed the strike was not purposefully discriminatory. The court therefore rejected Diaz’s challenge to the strike of Juror 33.

Disposition

The order provides the court’s written explanation for sustaining Diaz’s Batson challenge concerning Juror 26 and rejecting his second challenge concerning Juror 33. It was signed by United States District Judge William H. Orrick on September 28, 2021.