https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/05/tesla-must-face-sexual-harassment-lawsuit-as-judge-slams-arbitration-clause/ Skip to main content * Biz & IT * Tech * Science * Policy * Cars * Gaming & Culture * Store * Forums Subscribe [ ] Close Navigate * Store * Subscribe * Videos * Features * Reviews * RSS Feeds * Mobile Site * About Ars * Staff Directory * Contact Us * Advertise with Ars * Reprints Filter by topic * Biz & IT * Tech * Science * Policy * Cars * Gaming & Culture * Store * Forums Settings Front page layout Grid List Site theme Black on white White on black Sign in Comment activity Sign up or login to join the discussions! [ ] [ ] [Submit] [ ] Stay logged in | Having trouble? Sign up to comment and more Sign up "Procedurally unconscionable" -- Judge: Tesla can't force alleged sexual harassment victim into arbitration Tesla "ambushed" woman with one-sided arbitration agreement, judge writes. Jon Brodkin - May 24, 2022 7:51 pm UTC Aerial view of Tesla cars in a parking lot at the company's factor. The word Enlarge / Tesla cars in a lot at the company's factory in Fremont, California. Getty Images | Justin Sullivan reader comments 104 with 63 posters participating Share this story * Share on Facebook * Share on Twitter * Share on Reddit Tesla can't force a woman who sued the company over sexual harassment into arbitration, a judge ruled on Monday. Jessica Barraza sued Tesla in November 2021 in Alameda County Superior Court in California, alleging that she and other women working in the carmaker's Fremont factory were subjected to "nightmarish conditions of rampant sexual harassment." The Tesla factory "resembles a crude, archaic construction site or frat house," with women enduring sexual comments, propositions, and inappropriate touching, the lawsuit said. Barraza also alleged Tesla retaliated against her after she complained about sexual harassment and that she was "denied certain privileges and benefits that were afforded to women who did not object to supervisors' sexual advances and flirtations." Many more details are in our coverage of the lawsuit. Tesla moved to compel arbitration, saying Barraza signed an agreement that "[a]ny claim, dispute, or cause of action must be brought in a party's individual capacity, and not as a plaintiff or class member in any purported class or representative proceeding." The arbitration agreement "encompasses every claim pleaded in Plaintiff's complaint," Tesla said. Barraza's legal team called the agreement procedurally unconscionable, writing that "Tesla increased its leverage by not telling Ms. Barraza about the arbitration provision until she had already accepted a verbal offer and quit her other job." The offer letter she signed "does not explain that Ms. Barraza was giving up the right to a jury trial," Barraza's court filing said. "It is procedurally unconscionable to force a low-wage, unsophisticated worker to sign an adhesion contract relinquishing the right to go to court after she had already quit her [previous] job in reliance on Tesla's verbal job offer and had already signed three documents stating that disputes would be decided in court," the filing said. The previously signed documents included an applicant NDA, a visitor NDA, and a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA). Advertisement Judge: "Barraza was ambushed" Tesla argued its case in a hearing, but Judge Stephen Kaus was not convinced and, in an order issued on Monday, denied Tesla's motion to compel arbitration. Kaus wrote, "The amount of procedural unconscionability here is considerable. Having left her previous employment, the pressure on Barraza to sign the offer letter was more significant than that found to be minimal in other cases." While Tesla argued that Barraza had the option of not signing the offer letter, Kaus found "it is obvious that signing was a condition of employment." "Tesla either orchestrated this sequence of events on purpose or was unacceptably indifferent to the situation in which this placed Barraza," the judge wrote. "Basically, Barraza was ambushed. She had gone through extensive pre-employment activities, had been offered a job, signed multiple forms and had left her previous employment in reliance on that offer, all without Tesla giving any indication that she would have to agree to arbitrate employment claims and give up her right to a jury trial." In a press release, Barraza attorney David Lowe said, "Because of this ruling, Tesla will not be able to hide behind the closed doors of confidential arbitration," and Barraza's claims will be heard in a jury trial. "I'm so grateful that this decision brings us one step closer to justice," Barraza said. Page: 1 2 Next - reader comments 104 with 63 posters participating Share this story * Share on Facebook * Share on Twitter * Share on Reddit Jon Brodkin Jon is Ars Technica's senior IT reporter, covering the FCC and broadband, telecommunications, tech policy, and more. Email jon.brodkin@arstechnica.com // Twitter @JBrodkin Advertisement You must login or create an account to comment. Channel Ars Technica - Previous story Next story - Related Stories Today on Ars * Store * Subscribe * About Us * RSS Feeds * View Mobile Site * Contact Us * Staff * Advertise with us * Reprints Newsletter Signup Join the Ars Orbital Transmission mailing list to get weekly updates delivered to your inbox. Sign me up - CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group (c) 2022 Conde Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 1/1/20) and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement (updated 1/1 /20) and Ars Technica Addendum (effective 8/21/2018). Ars may earn compensation on sales from links on this site. Read our affiliate link policy. Your California Privacy Rights | Do Not Sell My Personal Information The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Conde Nast. Ad Choices