The eight plaintiffs accuse SpaceX and Elon Musk of fostering a hostile and discriminatory workplace that demeans women and LGBTQ+ people; and the California-based former employees were terminated soon after they circulated an open letter calling Musk’s public conduct a “distraction and embarrassment” to the company.
In late 2022, the eight plaintiffs filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board and complaints with California’s Civil Rights Department for their Fair Employment and Housing Act claims and received “right to sue” letters in June 2024. Their complaints were moved to federal court when the defendants cited diversity jurisdiction. However, the plaintiffs argued in their motion to remand that SpaceX’s principal place of business is Hawthorne, including the company’s address listed with the Texas Secretary of State, and the addresses for seven officers, including Musk. And Starbase, Texas, is a ‘launch site’. The plaintiffs explained that SpaceX relies on Musk and COO Gwynne Shotwell’s locations to establish a nerve center in Starbase, but other high-level executives continue running operations from Hawthorne.
An attorney for the plaintiffs said the court should reconsider a ruling by U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder before she recused herself that denied her clients’ motion for the case to be remanded to state court due to a lack of diversity jurisdiction, reported Law360. Further, Judge Snyder erred by not properly considering facts before the court regarding location of the “nerve center.
In October 2024 at a remand issue hearing, Judge Snyder told defendants and plaintiffs that she was “leaning ever so slightly to finding that the nerve center is in Texas” and later denied the plaintiffs’ motion. One month later, the judge recused herself from the case because she owns Tesla stock and is friends with a SpaceX human resource executive’s mother-in-law.
In a motion for reconsideration filed Nov. 7, the plaintiffs argued they have “repeatedly challenged the assertion that Musk or Shotwell work from Starbase regularly enough to render it SpaceX’s ‘nerve center’ and requested that SpaceX be required to prove their assertions with reliable evidence, as was proffered in other cases. At minimum, plaintiffs should have been granted jurisdictional discovery to plug the holes in SpaceX’s evidence — notwithstanding that this is not plaintiffs’ burden.”
READ MORE CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW LEGAL NEWS
The plaintiffs’ attorney said, “Musk thinks he’s above the law. Our eight brave clients stood up to him and were fired for doing so. We look forward to holding Musk accountable for his actions at trial.” (As of February 3rd, Musk had not been served in the case, reported Law360.) Plaintiff Paige Holland-Thielen said, “Filing this suit marks an important milestone in our quest for justice, for holding leadership accountable, and for implementing responsible changes in workplace policies for our colleagues at SpaceX who continue to toil in a hostile work environment. We hope that this lawsuit encourages our colleagues to stay strong and to keep fighting for a better workplace.”
The case is Paige Holland-Thielen et al. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. et al., case number 2:24-cv-06972, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Source link
