Austin v. Tesla Motors, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 23-cv-00067-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

v. Re: Dkt. No.

TESLA MOTORS, INC.,

Defendant.

For the reasons stated below, the Court, with one exception, denies Tesla Motors, Inc.’s motion to dismiss George Jarvis Austin’s third amended complaint.1 1. Tesla hasn’t convinced the Court that Austin’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 lacks merit. Austin alleges that while working at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, CA, he was subjected to “racist name calling,” dkt. 51 at 24, and heard the “N-word” used “loosely and on a regular basis,” id. at 41. Racially charged verbal abuse in the workplace is actionable under § 1981. See Diaz v. Tesla, Inc., 598 F. Supp. 3d 809, 816–17, 826–28 (N.D. Cal. 2022).

1 Austin voluntarily amended his complaint three times. See Dkts. 27, 49, 51. Tesla didn’t op- pose those amendments, so the Court will treat them “as if [they] had been filed with the written agreement of the parties.” Hunter v. Sotera Def. Sols., Inc., No. CV-11-292-RMP, 2012 WL 262555, at *6 n.3 (E.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2)). The fact that…