Taylor v. Tesla, No. A168333 (D1d4 Aug. 8, 2024)
Plaintiffs in this case are also members of a class in a race discrimination class action brought against Tesla. There is a lot of discovery fighting in the class action, including over how much Tesla needs to produce regarding prior employee complaints of race discrimination.
Outside of the litigation, Plaintiffs demanded their employment records from Tesla under some provisions of the Labor Code. Tesla stiffed them. So Plaintiffs sued Tesla under the PAGA for violating the Labor Code provisions.
Tesla responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, which was denied because the trial court found that the PAGA case—which was premised on Tesla’s failure to produce the employment records—did not arise from any protected activity.
The Court of Appeal agrees. Although there is some overlap between the class action litigation and the documents requested here, Tesla’s refusal to produce the documents is not a “written or oral statement,” so neither Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16(e)(1) or (2) apply.
Tesla thus turns to (e)(4), which has been construed to encompass conduct. But that provision requires the conduct to be in connection with a public issue. The class action might address a significant public issue—allegations of racism at an enormous public company. But under the test in FilmOn, the conduct from which the claim arises must contribute, further, or participate in the debate on the public issue. Withholding employees’ personnel files in violation of statutory obligations to produce them does not meaningfully contribute to the public debate about racism at Tesla, so it does not satisfy that test.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment