According to a petition filed on Wednesday with California's Office of Administrative Law, Tesla has alleged the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) neglected to complete adequate investigations before suing the company for racial discrimination at its assembly facility.
CARSON CITY, NEVADA- SEPTEMBER 4: Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors, listens as Governor Brian Sandoval of Nevada speaks during a press conference at the Nevada State Capitol, September 4, 2014 in Carson City, Nevada.
DFEH vs. Tesla
In February, the DFEH filed a lawsuit against Tesla, alleging racial discrimination and harassment at the company's Fremont manufacturing. Tesla had been making efforts to put the lawsuit on hold to settle allegations outside of court, something the automaker believes should have been an option before the lawsuit was filed.
According to Reuters, California Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo said that delaying the lawsuit would be improper. However, as per court documents, Grillo intended to accept a hearing for a demurrer motion or a request to dismiss, grounded on the DFEH's practices on August 23.
In its response to Grillo's decision rejecting to grant the motion to keep the case and in the petition filed with OAL, the automaker accuses DFEH of enacting "underground regulations" that ignore requirements it must meet before filing lawsuits against employers, including a fair notice of an investigation and assisting in the mediation of disputes before taking it to court.
Tesla claims that the DFEH neglected to give it notice of the "specifics" of its investigations before starting them and that it failed to produce material to back up its findings against the company.
The case was also brought without first participating in "good faith conciliation and mediation," and on accusations "not previously investigated and/or for which the employers were not granted pre-suit notice," as claimed by the company.
Read also: Tesla Says It's Under Another Investigation by Federal Equal Employment Agency
What Does the Law Say?
The statute appears to suggest that the DFEH is required to investigate charges of bias promptly but does not necessarily say that the employer must be notified before the investigation.
However, the law states that the DFEH must "immediately endeavor to eliminate the unlawful employment practice complained of by conference, conciliation, and persuasion" before filing a civil action and that "the department shall require all parties to participate in mandatory dispute resolution in the department's internal dispute resolution division free of charge to the parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without litigation."
Based on specified conditions, the OAL has 60 days to accept or reject a petition. However, because the litigation is already ongoing, it's unclear whether approving this petition will help Tesla's case.
The DFEH's case is one of several in California courts accusing Tesla of enabling discrimination and sexual harassment at its workplaces.
A California judge inched closer to resolving a complaint with ex-Tesla elevator operator Owen Diaz, who claimed he was subjected to widespread discriminatory harassment and treatment during his nine months at the Fremont facility.
On Tuesday, June 7, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco ordered Diaz for two weeks to take Tesla's $15 million settlement, which is strikingly far from the $137 million a jury had previously awarded Diaz.
Related Article: Elon Musk's Tesla Will Lay Off 10% of Staff, Pauses Hiring Worldwide - Why?
This article is owned by Tech Times
Written by Joaquin Victor Tacla
