On Thursday, Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA) filed a countersuit against the California agency that has accused the electric vehicle manufacturer of tolerating rampant race discrimination at its flagship assembly facility. The agency’s allegations were made public earlier this week.
In a complaint sent to the state court in Alameda County, Tesla Inc said that the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), which had sued the company in February, had made “underground rules” that let it file the lawsuit without first telling Tesla Inc about the claims or giving the company a chance to settle. The CRD had taken the company to court. The CRD had brought a lawsuit against the company.
The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) sued the company in February. Tesla Inc stated in its complaint that the CRD had sued the company in February because it had sued the company in February. A lawsuit had been brought by the CRD against the corporation.
Tesla Inc Countersuit and Standing
Tesla Inc contends in its countersuit that the CRD violated state law by not seeking public feedback before implementing protocols for investigating and suing corporations. This, Tesla says, constitutes a violation of the open meetings statute. According to Tesla, this represents a breach of the law inside the state.
Tesla Inc asserts that these methods violate requirements that the CRD reveals details of its investigations to employers and take steps to settle disputes outside of court before filing a lawsuit. Additionally, Tesla asserts that these methods violate requirements that the CRD take steps to resolve disputes before filing a lawsuit. In addition, the CRD is obligated to provide employers with specifics regarding its investigation.
Tesla has requested a court order requiring the California Employment Relations Department (CRD) to adopt new regulations through a formal rulemaking process and prohibiting the CRD from following its allegedly unlawful procedures in the investigation of any employer. Tesla Inc is researching the California Employment Relations Department (CRD), the study’s subject.
Tesla had previously made allegations along these lines in an effort to have the action taken by the California agency dropped, but a state judge had previously denied the company’s plea to have the action dismissed.
However, the complaint that was filed on Thursday may make it possible for the company’s attorneys to discover additional details about the methods of the CRD and its investigation of Tesla Inc through the discovery process. This might strengthen the company’s efforts to have the case dismissed.
The Civil Rights Division (CRD) asserts that Tesla Inc’s flagship Fremont, California, plant is racially segregated and a hostile environment for black employees, who were subjected to racist slurs and graffiti and were mistreated in terms of job assignments, disciplinary actions, and financial compensation.
Tesla Inc has issued a denial of any wrongdoing and claimed that politics drove the case.
The company requested an investigation into the CRD’s alleged adoption of unconstitutional practices in June by submitting a request to a separate California body known as the Office of Administrative Law. The OAL decided not to review the Tesla Inc petition the previous month without providing a reason for its decision.
Located in Austin, Texas, Several lawsuits alleging racial and gender bias have been filed against Tesla Inc by current and former employees, most of which concern the Fremont facility.
In April, a state judge reduced the $137 million jury judgment awarded to a black woman who accused her employer of racial discrimination to $15 million. The plaintiff decided against accepting the decreased award and instead sought a second trial, which would take place in March of 2023.
Featured Image: Megapixl © Photomall
Author Valerie Remorosa 
