Getty Images | Josh Edelson On Wednesday, a federal judge dismissed Tesla’s claim that it was not responsible for the “annoying” racist abuse suffered by a former factory worker. U.S. District Attorney William Oric dismissed what he called Tesla’s “reduced revisionism” that he described as plaintiff’s Owen Diaz’s suffering as “mild and short-lived.” However, the judge reduced Diaz’s financial reward. While the jury awarded Diaz $ 6.9 million in damages and $ 130 million in punitive damages, Orrick set the amounts at $ 1.5 million in damages and $ 13.5 million in punitive damages. He wrote that the new compensation of $ 1.5 million is “the highest reward supported by the data” and that the punitive damages can be nine times this amount under US law. “The evidence was alarming,” Orrick said in the U.S. District Court for Northern California. “The jury heard that Tesla’s factory was saturated with racism. Diaz was subjected to frequent racial abuses, including n-word and other insults. He was harassed by other employees. “And even the supervisors participated in the abuse, to the point of threatening Diaz and plotting a racist caricature near his workstation.” Tesla wanted to limit the compensatory and punitive damages to $ 300,000 each. Advertising
“Legally sufficient basis to hold Tesla liable”
Diaz was working at a Tesla plant in Fremont starting in June 2015 and “split” from Tesla without prior notice in May 2016, the ruling said. Diaz’s salaries came from a staff service called CitiStaff, but he testified that “everything [his] The instructions came from Tesla. “He received training and certification from Tesla for his job as a forklift operator. He sued Tesla in October 2017. After the lawsuit, Tesla asked the court for a “legal ruling that he is not liable” or alternatively “for a new lawsuit and a reduction in the amount of compensation,” Orrick said. Tesla argued that under USC 42 § 1981 — a law of the post-reconstruction period prohibiting discrimination in the award and enforcement of contracts — was not liable because “Diaz’s employment contract was with a staff service contracted by him. Tesla, not Tesla itself. wrote Oric. Oric rejected the proposal as a legal matter, writing: [T]The court had a legally sufficient basis to hold Tesla liable for two reasons. First, it found in a special verdict that Tesla had qualified as Diaz’s employer under the law, even if not on paper. He could reasonably conclude that this employment relationship is governed by a tacit contract. Secondly, it could be established that Diaz was the intended beneficiary of the contract between Tesla and the personnel service. Diaz was therefore entitled to exercise Section 1981’s claim to exercise his rights under this contract. For the rest of the issues, Tesla withdrew its legal dispute from the allegation of negligence in overseeing Diaz’s state law. Tesla’s proposal for a new lawsuit is also rejected. the weight of the evidence sufficiently supports the findings of the jury’s liability.
