In March 2016, plaintiff Owen Diaz, a Black elevator lead at the Tesla Inc. automobile factory in Fremont, resigned from his employment. Diaz had been a contract employee for Tesla before being promoted to an elevator lead. He claimed that he was subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment, beginning shortly after starting at Tesla and continuing until his resignation. Diaz claimed that he complained about his treatment, but that effective remedial action was not undertaken. He claimed that the harassment did not stop and that he was ultimately forced to resign. Diaz’s son, plaintiff Demetric Di-az, a contract employee of Tesla, and another Tesla contract employee, plaintiff Lamar Patterson, both Black men, also claimed that they were subjected to race-based discrimination while working at Tesla. Diaz, Di-az and Patterson sued Tesla; the company that managed contract employees at Tesla’s factory, nextSource Inc.; the staffing company that placed Diaz at the Tesla factory, CitiStaff Solutions Inc.; the staffing company that placed Di-az at the Tesla factory, West Valley Staffing Group; and the staffing company that placed Patterson at the Tesla factory, Chartwell Staffing Services Inc. The lawsuit alleged that the plaintiffs were subjected to racially discriminatory acts. The lawsuit further alleged that Diaz was subjected to a hostile environment that constituted a constructive discharge. Di-az’s claim was dismissed, thereby resulting in the dismissal of West Valley Staffing Group, and Patterson’s claim was severed for arbitration. Diaz’s counsel negotiated a pretrial settlement of the claims against CitiStaff Solutions and nextSource. The matter proceeded to a trial that addressed Diaz’s claim against Tesla. Diaz claimed that he was regularly subjected to racial slurs by two supervisors, that he was told to "go back to Africa," that he was exposed to racist drawings and graffiti, and that he witnessed his son being subjected to the use of racial epithets. Davis claimed that he and several co-workers reported the conduct, but that the offending worker was merely warned about "kidding around." Three Tesla supervisors claimed that they overheard daily use of racial epithets without repercussion. One of Diaz’s supervisors acknowledged that the conduct was corroborated in an email. Diaz’s counsel argued that Tesla was Diaz’s joint employer under 42 USC § 1981, but Tesla’s counsel argued that Diaz was not Tesla’s employee nor were Diaz’s alleged harassers. Tesla’s counsel also argued that any time harassment was brought to Tesla’s attention, it handled it with appropriate remedial action. Tesla’s counsel contended that Diaz never submitted a written complaint about the alleged use of racial epithets and that Diaz was not bothered by the conduct he was subjected to because Diaz encouraged his son to work for Tesla. Tesla’s counsel also contended that racial epithets were not widely used at the Tesla factory., Diaz worked as a contract employee at the Tesla factory in Fremont from June 3, 2015, to March 2016. He worked as an elevator operator, moving products and materials between the floors of the Tesla factory. Diaz was promoted to an elevator lead on Aug. 17, 2015. He claimed that he was forced to resign in March 2016 as a result of being subjected to racial harassment at work. Diaz further claimed that he suffers emotional distress as a result of the treatment he was subjected to at work. Diaz’s expert psychologist opined that Diaz still suffers from his experiences at Tesla and that counseling has been recommended. Diaz sought recovery of damages for past and future emotional pain and suffering. He also sought recovery of punitive damages.