Tesla Loses in Court, Again, for Failing in its Legal Obligations to Workers

Tesla Loses in Court, Again, for Failing in its Legal Obligations to Workers

Workers’ Right to Obtain Personnel Records Not Blocked by Pending Class Action

Bryan Schwartz Law (BSL) has been prosecuting race harassment claims against Tesla since 2017, along with co-counsel, in Vaughn v. Tesla. In May 2024, the Alameda County Superior Court certified what may be the largest harassment class in history in Vaughn. While Vaughn was proceeding, BSL requested personnel records (like wage statements, personnel files, etc.) for hundreds of the Black/African American workers at Tesla’s Fremont factory. Tesla had an obligation to produce these workers’ personnel records within 30 days under California Labor Code §1198.5 and other provisions. But, as has been so typical, Tesla acted as though it was above the law, and did not do what the law required – for most people, the company produced nothing at all.

BSL along with co-counsel sued Tesla for its failure to produce personnel records as it was legally required to do, under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Tesla fought against the lawsuit, called Taylor v. Tesla, by saying that it was improper to sue the company regarding its failure to produce personnel files, because Tesla’s non-production was actually a form of protected speech in the Vaughn case. 🤦🏿! Tesla’s anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a statute designed to protect free speech) motion failed.

Tesla appealed after it lost at the trial court, and – once again – lost today in the Court of Appeal, in a published decision that is important in protecting workers’ rights to obtain their own personnel records. The Court began by deciding, “Seeing no merit in any of Tesla’s arguments, we affirm.” The Court explained: “The plaintiffs did not lose their rights to demand information the Labor Code entitles them to receive simply because BSL drew up a plaintiff class that includes them….’It may well have been the case…that the documents…requested’ by the [party] would be used to ‘ascertain whether grounds for …a claim or lawsuit existed’ [citation], but [the party] was still entitled to obtain the documents by independent statutory authority….Regardless of their status as putative unnamed class members, plaintiffs were entitled to seek whatever information the Labor Code authorized them to seek, unconstrained by the strictures of the Vaughn discovery process.” The Court’s opinion concluded: “The bottom line, as we see it, is this. Faced with many requests for information that had nothing to do with the allegations in Vaughn, Tesla made no effort to produce anything. This suggests it viewed the Vaughn case as a convenient excuse to relieve itself of the burden of meeting statutory obligations that were independent of its Vaughn defense. ”

Tesla has failed again and again to avoid having to obey the laws that apply to all California companies, and Bryan Schwartz Law will continue to fight to hold the company accountable.

If your employer is failing to meet its obligations under the Labor Code or another law, contact Bryan Schwartz Law today.