|
There is failure to protect and then there is this sort of behavior as seen in the Di-az v Tesla case [1] where Tesla was found guilty of subjecting employees to a racially hostile work environment in the very same Fremont factory also in 2017: "Diaz produced evidence that he complained to Tesla supervisors about many more incidents than the two Tesla references, including being called the N-word by Martinez. See Tr. at 511:17–512:17, 585:24–586:4. Then, in October 2015, Diaz testified that Martinez rushed at him, cornered him, was screaming racial abuse, and made threatening gestures. See id. at 450:6–452:11. Both Diaz and Martinez complained about the other’s behavior (Martinez’s complaint was that Diaz was unprofessional), but Tesla’s HR department declined to conduct a “formal investigation” and reprimanded them both. See Ex. 31. This was in spite of the fact that there was surveillance footage to examine, see Tr. 452:8–11, and in spite of the fact that Diaz’s complaint was, even without referencing the use of a racial slur, more serious than Martinez’s." Di-az complained about their manager, Martinez, using the N-word and threatening Di-az and then the company reprimanded Di-az. By the way [2]: "Martinez, a Tesla supervisor and the main perpetrator of racist conduct, still works at Tesla, nearly a decade after he forced Diaz to endure repeated cruelty and shame. Not only did the company turn a blind eye to the racism, but the jury also could have interpreted the evidence to show that Tesla knew what it was supposed to do and affirmatively chose to not carry out the proper responses." [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-06... [2] https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-7 |