Austin v. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Background

George Jarvis Austin sued Tesla Motors, Inc. Austin’s third amended complaint alleged, among other things, racial verbal abuse while he worked at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California; Tesla’s failure to provide personnel records after repeated requests; common-law tort claims; fraud; disability discrimination; retaliation; and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The opinion states that Austin was representing himself and that his complaint was difficult to follow.

Tesla moved to dismiss. The court considered the claims Tesla challenged and did not decide the claims Tesla did not move to dismiss.

Claims the Court Allowed to Proceed

The court denied Tesla’s motion to dismiss Austin’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Austin alleged that he experienced racist name-calling at work and that the N-word was used regularly. The court stated that racially charged verbal abuse in the workplace can support a § 1981 claim. It also rejected Tesla’s argument that Austin’s status as a contractor defeated the claim at the pleading stage. Austin alleged that Tesla managed his assignments and working hours and required him to follow Tesla’s safety procedures. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage to support the required contractual relationship.

The court also declined to dismiss Austin’s claim under California Labor Code section 1198.5. That law gives current and former employees a right to inspect and receive copies of certain personnel records and permits injunctive relief—an order requiring compliance—to obtain those records. Austin alleged that he repeatedly requested his records and that Tesla continued to deny those requests. The court said the claim was not clearly barred by the statute of limitations because Austin alleged later requests after his first request in November 2019.

The court likewise denied Tesla’s argument that Austin’s common-law tort claims were untimely. As the court understood them, those claims were based on Tesla’s alleged continuing failure to provide his personnel records. The court concluded that Austin could proceed under a continuing-violation theory because he alleged that the failure was still occurring in 2023.

Fraud Claim

The court granted Tesla’s motion to dismiss Austin’s fraud claim, with leave to amend. The court found that Austin had not identified a misrepresentation Tesla made to him on which he relied to his detriment. It also found that he had not described the circumstances of the alleged fraud with the particularity required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Other Claims and Prior Lawsuit

The court construed the complaint as raising disability-discrimination, retaliation, and breach-of-the-duty-of-good-faith-and-fair-dealing claims. Tesla had not moved to dismiss those claims, so the court did not consider them. The court did not construe the complaint as raising an insurance bad-faith claim and therefore did not address Tesla’s argument about such a claim.

Tesla also pointed to an earlier lawsuit by Austin involving wage theft or retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. That lawsuit had been unsuccessful. But Tesla did not argue that legal doctrines barring repeat litigation or relitigation prevented Austin’s current claims, so the court said the earlier lawsuit did not affect its ruling.

Disposition

The court granted Tesla’s motion to dismiss Austin’s fraud claim and denied Tesla’s motion in all other respects. Austin was given leave to amend the fraud claim in an amended complaint filed by July 18, 2023, but he could not add new claims.