Thank you for reading!
Do not let this offer slide

Get Standard Digital Access to enjoy this article and more

6 months for $1

Already a subscriber? Registration

This May 14, 2017 photo shows the Clean Wash Center in San Francisco, California. The San Francisco district attorney is suing the owner and occupant of a building where he says 20 people lived in squalid, unsafe conditions in the basement of the commercial laundromat. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the lawsuit, filed Tuesday, Aug. 22, accuses the owner and anchor tenant of the building in the city's Mission District of violating fire, electrical, plumbing and other municipal codes. (San Francisco Chronicle via AP Santiago Mejia)

Stay up to date on breaking news with our mobile app from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store.

SAN FRANCISCO – The San Francisco district attorney is suing the owner and occupant of a building where he says 20 people lived in squalid, unsafe conditions in the basement of a commercial laundromat.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the lawsuit filed Tuesday accuses the owner and anchor tenant of the building in the city's Mission District of violating fire, electrical, plumbing and other municipal codes.

The fire department described the building as a death trap and described the fire code violations as egregious.

Firefighters discovered the residents while responding to an emergency call on Christmas Day last year. Inside, they found exposed plumbing, leaking pipes, a functioning shower, an infestation of rats and cockroaches, and illegally partitioned rooms.

The lawsuit says the tenants were charged between $300 and $900 each.

___

Information from: San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com

For more information, visit The Mercury News

The post Lawsuit claims 20 lived in San Francisco laundromat basement appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Two San Francisco residents filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the construction company and contractors involved in a gas line rupture that caused a three-alarm fire on Geary Boulevard earlier this month.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs Carina Kouyoumji and Nora Wixom are suing Mastec Services Company Inc.; Mastec Renewables Construction Company Inc.; Kilford Engineering Inc.; and Advanced Fiber Works Inc. Verizon Communications Inc. was also named as a defendant.

Both plaintiffs live in one of the five buildings that were severely damaged in the fire on February 6th. The fire ignited after workers installing fiber optic lines near Geary Boulevard and Parker Avenue encountered a PG&E gas line.

The lawsuit alleges the explosion was a direct result of defendants' “reckless and willful violation of California law to use an excavator to dig a trench near underground facilities.”

The California government code requires anyone excavating near an underground installation, such as a gas line, to use hand tools such as a shovel.

The defendants are also accused of negligence, harassment and trespassing.

The lawsuit further alleges that the fire destroyed the property of the two plaintiffs, leaving them homeless. In addition, the two suffered from mental anguish and were therefore forced to take time off from work.

“Ultimately, there are contractors who work near high-pressure gas pipelines in a high-density area like San Francisco. One would think that all precautions would be taken in accordance with state law, including not using heavy machinery near gas pipelines,” said Ara Jabagchourian, lawyer for the plaintiffs. “We’re lucky no one was hurt here.”

Immediately after the gas line burst, flames shot into the air for over two hours before emergency crews stopped the flow of gas.

Residents in the neighborhood were evacuated. According to police and fire departments, two buildings were left with significant structural damage and three others with significant water damage.

According to PG&E, before excavation began, contractors had called 811 to check for utility lines beneath the area. PG&E then sent crews to the area to do markings.

Days after the incident, the National Transportation Safety Board announced that it had begun an investigation into the cause with assistance from the FBI. The investigation should include interviews with the contractors and subcontractors involved.

Florida-based Mastec and New York-based Verizon were not immediately available for comment. Kilford Engineering could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, Jabagchourian said.

The post Residents File Lawsuit In opposition to Contractors, Verizon Over San Francisco Gasoline Explosion – NBC Bay Space appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

A Vallejo Police sergeant goes through paperwork in his patrol car on May 7, 2008 in Vallejo. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

A repairman who was left covered in blood after being beaten and choked by Vallejo police will receive $750,000 from the city, it was announced Friday.

The city of San Francisco Bay Area agreed Thursday to settle a civil rights lawsuit filed by Carl Edwards over the 2017 incident, which was recorded by a witness and a police officer's body camera.

The lawsuit named the city, three police officers and a former officer.

An email seeking comment from the city after business hours Friday was not immediately returned.

Edwards was repairing his fence on July 30, 2017, when he was grabbed and tackled by officers, repeatedly punched in the head, hit in the knee and twice placed in a now-banned neck position that caused him to briefly pass out, they say said in a statement from Edward's attorney, Michael Haddad.

Edwards suffered a broken nose and a shoulder injury.

“I couldn't believe it when I was suddenly suffocated,” Edwards, 53, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “When I heard more sirens going off, I thought, 'Thank God these guys are going to tell these guys to back off.' And they just jumped in.”

A neighbor had called the police because a man was using a slingshot to shoot stones at her two boys. But arriving police learned that Edwards was not the man and that his clothing and description did not match those of the suspect, his attorney's statement said.

Edwards was charged with resisting arrest and other crimes. But after 14 months, the charges were dismissed by the Solano County district attorney for lack of evidence, the Chronicle said.

Edwards told the newspaper that he planned to leave town soon.

“I'm moving. I have to get out of here,” he said. “I'm gone.”

Last month, the Vallejo City Council announced a public safety emergency declaration, allowing staff to bypass normal channels to enforce police reforms. A more comprehensive reform proposal was also adopted.

The city of 120,000 residents is facing a “crisis of legitimacy and trust” that requires emergency measures, city spokeswoman Christina Lee said before the meeting.

Police are facing increasing criticism and financial liability over shootings and officer misconduct. Two dozen federal civil rights cases and more than a dozen damages suits are pending, which could cost the city $50 million as well as higher insurance premiums, Lee said.

In September, Vallejo agreed to pay $5.7 million to the family of a man who was shot by a police officer after being stopped for a minor traffic violation. In June, 22-year-old Sean Monterrosa was shot and killed by an officer who thought he had a gun when he didn't.

Earlier this year, the police chief announced he was launching an independent investigation after two people in the department said officers bent their badges to mark line-of-duty killings.

The post Vallejo to pay $750,000 to finish lawsuit over handyman crushed bloody, choked by police appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Victims of the McKinney Fire that destroyed homes and killed four people in Siskiyou County have sued the Oregon-based utility company providing power in far Northern California, claiming PacifiCorp powerlines sparked the fire.

While fire investigators with the United States Forest Service remain tight-lipped about what caused the blaze, the lawsuit argues power equipment is to blame. The fire ignited July 29 at a time of dangerous fire weather in a rural area by McKinney Creek near Klamath River, an unincorporated community on Highway 96 in Siskiyou County.

Tom Gauntt, a spokesperson for PacifiCorp, declined to answer questions about the McKinney Fire and said the lawsuit prevented the company from discussing the matter.

PacifiCorp, which operates as Pacific Power in California, filed a report with the California Public Utilities Commission six days after the fire started, alerting regulators that its equipment was in the area of ​​a fire. The company did not report any problems with its equipment to state regulators. Drew Hanson, another spokesman for PacifiCorp, told the Chronicle on Aug. 3 that “we are not aware of any equipment being collected for an investigation related to the McKinney Fire.”

Attorney Gerald Singleton said his firm’s investigator reported that overhead power lines were the only human infrastructure in the remote forested area where the fire started — no roads, structures or campsites. His San Diego-based firm, Singleton Schreiber, is representing about 25 property owners with losses from the fire.

“There’s nothing anyone has seen that would lead us to believe that the McKinney Fire started with anything other than power lines,” Singleton said.

A 911 caller reported the first flames of the McKinney Fire just before 2:15 pm on July 29. Emergency dispatch audio from some of the first fire units on scene describe the early flames. “About a quarter acre …. right now putting water on it … it is underneath the power line right-of-way,” a firefighter reported over the radio at about 2:30 pm

Singleton said his firm’s investigator was informed that the Forest Service collected power equipment from the origin site as evidence. He said they will request access to inspect the equipment in the course of civil litigation proceedings.

Adrienne Freeman, a spokesperson for the Forest Service, said the agency’s investigators were still determining how the fire started and were working with assistance from the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Office. Freeman declined to say whether any power equipment had been collected as potential evidence.

The lawsuit alleges PacifiCorp was negligent in its maintenance, operation and inspection of its power lines and names another 2020 wildfire in California that spurred a lawsuit blaming PacifiCorp for the destruction: the Slater Fire that burned 157,229 acres and killed two people in the Klamath National Forest . The cause of that fire is still under investigation. PacifiCorp did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the Slater Fire.

The McKinney Fire has burned 60,392 acres and is 95% contained. The blaze destroyed at least 196 structures. Those killed include longtime US Forest Service fire lookout Kathy Shoopman.

Julie Johnson (she/her) is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: julie.johnson@sfchronicle.com. Twitter: @juliejohnson

The post Lawsuit alleges utility PacifiCorp sparked lethal McKinney Fireplace appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

A handyman who was left bloodied after he was beaten and choked by Vallejo police will receive $750,000 from the city, it was announced Friday.

The San Francisco Bay Area city agreed Thursday to settle a civil rights lawsuit filed by Carl Edwards over the 2017 incident, which was recorded by a witness and by a police officer’s body camera.

The lawsuit named the city, three police officers and a former officer.

An email seeking comment from the city after hours Friday wasn’t immediately returned.

Edwards was fixing his fence on July 30, 2017, when he was grabbed and tackled by officers, punched repeatedly in the head, kneed and twice placed in a now-banned neck hold that caused him to briefly pass out, said a statement from his attorney, Michael Haddad.

Edwards suffered a broken nose and a shoulder injury.

“I couldn’t believe it when all of a sudden I was being choked,” Edwards, 53, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “When I heard more sirens coming, I thought, ‘Thank God, these guys are going to tell these guys to back off.’ And they just jumped in.”

A neighbor had called the police about a man shooting rocks with a slingshot at her two boys. But arriving police were told Edwards wasn’t the man and his clothing and description didn’t match those of the suspect, said his lawyer’s statement.

Edwards was charged with resisting arrest and other criminal counts. But after 14 months, the charges were dismissed by the Solano County district attorney for lack of evidence, the Chronicle said.

Edwards told the newspaper that he plans to leave the city soon.

“I’m moving. I gotta get out of here,” he said. “I’m gone.”

Last month, Vallejo’s City Council proclaimed a public safety emergency declaration allowing staff to bypass normal channels to push through police reforms. It also passed a broader reform proposal.

The city of 120,000 people faces “a crisis of legitimacy and trust” that demands emergency action, city spokeswoman Christina Lee said before the meeting.

Police face mounting criticism and fiscal liability over shootings and misconduct by officers. Two dozen federal civil rights cases and more than a dozen tort claims are pending that could cost the city $50 million as well as higher insurance premiums, Lee said.

In September, Vallejo agreed to pay $5.7 million to the family of a man who was shot and killed by an officer after he was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction. In June, 22-year-old Sean Monterrosa was shot and killed by the officer who thought he had a gun when he did not.

Earlier this year, the police chief announced he was launching an independent investigation after two people in the department said officers had their badges bent to mark on-duty killings.

Close modal

Suggest a correction

Suggest a correction

The post Vallejo to pay $750,000 to finish lawsuit over handyman crushed bloody, choked by police appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Government lawyers used airline executives’ own words in trying Tuesday to persuade a federal judge to kill a partnership between American Airlines and JetBlue Airways.

The government argued that the deal is, in effect, a merger that will cost consumers $700 million a year in higher fares. It said JetBlue’s pending purchase of Spirit Airlines will make matters even worse for travelers.

JetBlue CEO Robin Hayes was the first witness in the trial in federal district court in Boston over the federal government’s antitrust lawsuit against American and JetBlue. The airlines are coordinating schedules and sharing revenue from flights in the Northeast, including New York-area airports.

Hayes was quizzed about his own previous statements criticizing joint ventures involving other airlines and a 2019 comment that the airline industry “has never been more concentrated than it is today,” which he said led to higher fares and poor service.

Hayes testified that regulators had not imposed enough limits on those deals. He contrasted them with the pact between American and JetBlue, which he said involved no cooperation on setting prices.

In another 2019 memo, an American Airlines executive vowed that his company would fight JetBlue for supremacy in Boston — even using a metaphor of swinging baseball bats.

“We know how the story ends,” said William Jones, the lead attorney for the Justice Department. “Rather than continuing to slug it out, American and JetBlue decided to collaborate rather than to continue competing.”

Lawyers for American and JetBlue countered that the government has presented no evidence that their alliance — in place for 18 months now, since it was blessed by the outgoing Trump administration — has harmed consumers or resulted in higher fares. They said that it has allowed the airlines to add 50 new routes and create a stronger competitor to Delta and United.

The airlines’ lawyers said that the Justice Department sued prematurely instead of taking a wait-and-see approach.

“Most cases don’t get brought until there is some tangible evidence that the practices are doing harm,” said Daniel Wall, a San Francisco lawyer who is leading American’s defense.

Wall challenged the government’s claim that previous airline mergers — about a half dozen over the last two decades — have led to higher prices.

Transportation Department data from the first quarter shows that the national average fare declined 29% in the last 10 years and 36% in the last 20 years, after adjusting for inflation. While consolidation has eliminated famous aviation names such as TWA, Continental and Northwest, new low-fare airlines — including JetBlue — have pushed fares lower over that period.

The Justice Department and six states that have joined its lawsuit plan to call a Georgetown University economist who will testify that the American-JetBlue deal will reduce competition and cost consumers $700 million a year.

“And it stands potentially to get worse with JetBlue’s announced acquisition of Spirit Airlines,” Jones said.

The Justice Department is currently examining JetBlue’s proposed $3.8 billion purchase of Spirit. Jones’ comments indicate that regulators could take a dim view of the acquisition, which would mean the end of Spirit, the nation’s biggest discount airline.

The Biden administration has pushed to aggressively enforce antitrust laws, but it lost two major cases last week. The Justice Department failed in bids to block a merger of two big sugar refiners and an acquisition by health insurer UnitedHealth Group.

Associated Press writer Marcy Gordon in Washington, DC, contributed to this report.

The post JetBlue CEO first witness in U.S. lawsuit in opposition to 2 airways appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Pressure mounted Tuesday on the volunteer group redrawing San Francisco’s supervisory districts to finish its work as soon as possible after failing to meet its deadline last week.

Three people sued the San Francisco Redistricting Task Force in response to the group’s delay, which could lead to a judge deciding on new district boundaries. Separately, city lawyers told the task force it must adopt a final draft map when it meets on Thursday.

Task force members narrowly voted last week to blow past the April 15 deadline that the City Charter set for having new districts in place, opting to continue working on shaping the new district boundaries amid intense public scrutiny and political controversy.

Now, the lawsuit raises the possibility that the final map may be picked by a San Francisco Superior Court judge instead of the task force, a step that could have far-reaching consequences for city supervisor elections.

The City Attorney’s Office also contributed to the legal pressure Tuesday, publishing an opinion that said the task force must adopt a new final draft map when it meets again Thursday and approve it as the final map, after two additional hearings, on April 28. Lawyers for the city said in the memo that “there can be no further delays” now that the task force has missed its charter-mandated deadline.

The legal developments mark the latest twists in an unusually tumultuous process over which neighborhoods fall into which of San Francisco’s 11 supervisory districts. The result could affect the political balance on the Board of Supervisors depending on how the lines are drawn.

Todd David, the leader of a San Francisco housing development advocacy group and one of the people who filed the lawsuit, said he was motivated by a desire to defend the democratic process against what he saw as unwarranted political intrusion.

“It was very disturbing to me to watch a group of hardworking volunteers be bullied by the extreme NIMBY left,” David said, referring to people who oppose development. “From a political point of view, nobody loved the maps. It seemed to me that (task force members) did their job.”

The map that the task force had prepared to adopt last week was met with outcry from political activists, neighborhood leaders and other residents who viewed it as an attack on progressive representation. They specifically objected to proposals that would have put the Tenderloin and South of Market into different districts while also splitting up the Bayview and Potrero Hill, among other changes.

The suit filed by David, along with plaintiffs Jon Schwark and Drew Min, asks a judge to hold a hearing early next week and adopt a final district map before May 2, the date by which the Department of Elections needs the map to prepare for candidates running in the November election. In addition to the task force, the suit also names the city elections director John Arntz as a defendant.

Jen Kwart, a spokeswoman for the City Attorney’s Office, responded to the lawsuit with a statement saying her office continued to advise the task force “so that it can complete its work by May 2.” She said city officials had not been served with the suit but would “review it and respond appropriately.”

David said he hoped the task force would sign off on a map of new districts Thursday, rendering intervention by a judge unnecessary. But his suit will remain in the meantime as a “safety valve” in case the task force continues to delay, he said.

“The point of the lawsuit is to get a legal map done as soon as possible,” David said. “We would certainly come together and have a conversation and would seriously consider dropping the lawsuit if the map is done in a very quick time frame.”

The task force’s decision to take more time to work on the district boundaries was met with praise by progressive leaders who saw the group’s earlier proposals as politically tainted. By potentially moving neighborhoods like the tenderloin out of the districts where they are currently located, the task force would separate communities with long-standing ties and shared interests, diluting their political voices, critics say.

For example, the draft map the task force voted down last week would have left the city’s Transgender District — which spans parts of the Tenderloin and SoMa — represented by different supervisors. It also would have done the same to thousands of Filipinos who live in San Francisco, said Raquel Redondiez, director of the community group SOMA Pilipinas.

“If you look at the wealth disparity between the communities they preserved and the communities they broke up, they went after the most vulnerable and marginalized communities,” Redondiez said of the draft map.

Redondiez was among more than 20 community leaders who signed on to an April 13 letter denouncing the now-failed draft map as “racist, anti-working class, and a blueprint for gentrification.”

The task force is in charge of updating the district lines to account for population shifts reflected in the last census. The group’s nine members are appointed in equal numbers by the mayor, the Board of Supervisors and the city Elections Commission.

As the task force’s deadline neared and controversy escalated around the proposed boundaries, the Elections Commission considered removing its three appointees but ultimately decided against doing so. The commission’s move was prompted in part by concerns raised by the League of Women Voters of San Francisco and Asian Americans Advancing Justice.

Alison Goh, the league president, called the next meeting of the task force a “positive sign” that members “really intend to listen to community input.”

“We really hope the community continues to show up and make their voices heard,” Goh said. “If any of the community members, especially the most vulnerable, underrepresented folks, feel unheard, this is really the meeting where they need to show up and give comment.”

Thursday’s task force meeting starts at noon in Room 406 of City Hall.

JD Morris is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jd.morris@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @thejdmorris

The post San Francisco Redistricting Job Drive hit with lawsuit after lacking its deadline appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

The lawsuit also contradicts many of the accusations Tesla made against the DFEH. The EV maker said that, “at a time when manufacturing jobs are leaving California, the DFEH has decided to sue Tesla instead of constructively working with us.” Tesla said that was “both unfair and counterproductive, especially because the allegations focus on events from years ago.” The Californian agency has a very different story to tell.

According to the lawsuit, DFEH “attempted to resolve this matter without litigation.” The Californian agency said it “invited Tesla to participate in a mediation session with the department’s internal dispute resolution division on January 12 and 20, 2022, but Tesla refused to attend until February 8, 2022.”

On February 7, 2022, “Tesla announced the DFEH investigation for the first time during the three-year investigation in its Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10-K.” On February 8, “the parties were unable to resolve the administrative complaints at the mediation.”

On February 9, Tesla published a blog post complaining about the Californian agency, implying it could leave the state for good due to that. The DFEH lawsuit was filed on the same day. It states it happened on February 9, 2021, which was clearly a typo.

The way DFEH puts it, it seems Tesla did everything it could to have a legal battle while pretending it did not want it. Considering the DFEH would not lie about a mediation session, the behavior Tesla presented in this case looks not only elusive, but also incredibly unwise to put it in political terms.

Owen Diaz won a lawsuit against Tesla for racial harassment and discrimination. A San Francisco jury ruled he should receive $6.9 million for emotional distress and $130 million for punitive damages. Tesla is now fighting to reduce the punitive damages award in courts. Confronted with the Californian agency’s lawsuit, the court may decide it was a fair value. And Tesla may have to pay even more if the Superior Court of California decides the DFEH’s allegations are correct.

The cases would also not be from years ago, as Tesla said. The company stated the DFEH “has been asked on almost 50 occasions by individuals who believe they were discriminated against or harassed to investigate Tesla.” According to the EV maker, it would have concluded all investigations “without a finding of misconduct against Tesla.” The DFEH denies that.

In its lawsuit, it said that “after approximately three years of investigation, receiving hundreds of complaints from workers and serving many to Tesla, DFEH issued a cause finding on January 3, 2022.” In other words, the investigation started around 2019 and ended very recently.

Summing up, we’re talking about hundreds of complaints, of which only some may have been served to Tesla. That’s probably why the company concluded that they were only “almost 50” instead of way more than that.

It is not clear why DFEH served only a few to Tesla nor why it issued only one cause finding to deal with hundreds of complaints. Perhaps a single, more general one was all it took, but we’d need to confirm that with the DFEH. We have sent a few questions to the Californian agency. All we received back was a copy of the lawsuit.

It shows the DFEH seems to have had enough with Tesla’s behavior. It states that “Mr. Musk is infamous for taking positions that run counters to those of other car companies, technology companies, billionaires and workers.” It also notes that “Tesla’s brand, purportedly highlighting a socially conscious future, masks the reality of a company that profits from an army of production workers, many of whom are people of color, working under egregious conditions.”

A little further ahead, the lawsuit shows a pretty grim working environment in Fremont. The DFEH did not expose the identity of the workers that complained about racism there or identified the people that perpetrated the multiple racial insults. They are only identified as “DOES ONE through FIFTY,” meaning that the DFEH “will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same are ascertained.”

The DFEH does not spare the details of what African American workers go through “throughout the day, every day” at Fremont. Some of them claim to hear racial insults 50 to 100 times a day.

They include “the n-word, ‘porch monkey,’ ‘monkey toes,’ ‘boy,’ ‘hood rats,’ and ‘horse hair.’” African American workers also heard insults in Spanish, such as “mayate” (equivalent to the n-word or to calling someone gay, depending on the context) and “negrita” (little black woman).

They also hear racist jokes such as “n-word out of the hood,” “from the ghetto,” “Tesla [was] hiring lazy coons,” and “go back to Africa.” DFEH also says that the factory is racially segregated, which allegedly causes areas with a majority of African American workers to be referred to as “porch monkey station,” “slaveship,” or “the plantation,” where the management would “crack the whip .”

The environment in Fremont is described as threatening to African Americans. They see “swastikas, ‘KKK,’ the n-word, and other racist writing” onto “walls of restrooms, restroom stalls, lunch tables, and even factory machinery.” “One Black worker observed ‘hang N[ ]’ penned next to a drawing of a noose in the breakroom restroom. This worker also saw ‘all monkeys work outside’ and ‘f[ ] N[ ]’ on the breakroom walls.”

Workers with Confederate flag tattoos allegedly exhibit them proudly to try to start a fight with African Americans. If any altercation emerges, the latter are punished more severely, which can include even terminations. The same would not happen to the employees provoking the African American workers.

The DFEH also accuses Tesla of employing African American people in “more physically demanding posts and the lowest-level contract roles.” Tesla would also pay them less and prevent them from “advancement opportunities.” There are reports of “only Black and/or African American workers cleaning the factory floor on their hands and knees,” something no other group of employees allegedly had to endure.

The Californian agency even traced a racial profile of Tesla workers. According to it, “Black and/or African American workers make up 0% of executives and about 3% of professionals at the Fremont plant.” On the other hand, “about 20% of the factory operatives, such as engine and other machine assemblers, are Black and/or African American.”

The issue is that the DFEH did not do its homework as it should. It also states in the lawsuit that “segregation at the Fremont factory, along with the absence of Black and/or African Americans in leadership roles, has left many complaints of rampant racism unchecked for years.” The Californian agency either completely forgot about Valerie Capers Workman, Tesla’s former vice president of people, or tried to exempt her from responsibility to reinforce the narrative that an African American executive could have prevented racism.

Workman is African American and she worked for Tesla for four years. She became the company’s vice president of people in July 2020. If she did not do anything about the “systematic racial discrimination and harassment” in her one year and seven months as the main human resources executive at the company, there are only two possible explanations for that: either Workman did not think there was anything wrong, or she could not do anything about it.

When Diaz won his lawsuit against Tesla on October 4, 2021, Workman’s email to employees ended up as a Tesla blog post as well. It is still online and states that she “strongly” believed that “these facts don’t justify the verdict reached by the jury in San Francisco.” Workman also said Diaz was not a Tesla employee – as if what happened to him inside Fremont was less severe due to being a contract worker – and that “he didn’t make any complaints about the n-word until after he was not hired full -time by Tesla – and after he hired an attorney.”

The DFEH lawsuit presents 13 causes of action against Tesla. Summing them up, they have to do with racial harassment, racial discrimination in the work environment (leading to worse employment conditions for African Americans), retaliation against those who complained, and fail to keep records of complaints.

The DFEH is asking Tesla to be judged by a jury. If convicted, the Californian agency wants the EV maker to pay:

1. Compensatory and punitive damages;
2. Economic damages and equitable relief (…);
3. Liquidated damages and penalties as required by law;
4. Injunctive relief;
5. Declaratory relief;
6. Prejudgment interest, as required by law;
7. Attorneys’ fees and costs to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing; other
8. Other relief the Court deems to be just and proper

That can represent a significant financial blow to Tesla, even worse than that caused by the Owen Diaz case. After all, we are now talking about “hundreds” of complaints with really serious reports of racial harassment and discrimination. That’s something Tesla and its investors have to worry about.

For us, what is more shocking is having to imagine anyone working every day in a hostile environment such as the one described by the DFEH lawsuit. If that is really how things are there, the quality problems Tesla vehicles suffer finally have a convincing – and pretty sad – explanation.

The post DFEH Racism Lawsuit Accuses Tesla of Shifting to Texas to Keep away from Accountability appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Loved ones hold a vigil for Latitia Austin Ahmad on Ashby Avenue and Newbury Street in South Berkeley on August 5, 2021. Photo credit: Emilie Raguso

According to new paperwork filed in the Alameda County Superior Court last week, DoorDash should stop texting its drivers while they are moving and do more to limit distracted driving altogether.

Attorney Mark Webb has filed a wrongful death lawsuit seeking an injunction ordering DoorDash – a multi-billion dollar company calling itself the country’s leading delivery app – to change its practices following a fatal collision in Berkeley that killed a DoorDash driver and a pedestrian in July.

Webb said he believes his case will be the first lawsuit against DoorDash to seek injunctive relief.

“DOORDASH has so far failed to implement a technology that prevents Dasher from texting illegally while driving,” said Webb’s lawsuit. “It turns a blind eye when its drivers are statistically likely to cut in the name of profit.”

Sharif Ahmad and Delvonnia Cooper with their aunt (center). Courtesy: Ahmad family

On July 26, Latitia Austin Ahmad, 54, was hit and fatally injured on Ashby Avenue by a DoorDash driver on her way to pick up a delivery. The driver, Helen Dale, also hit Ahmad’s daughter, 25-year-old Delvonnia Cooper, who survived but suffered serious injuries.

In August, Webb filed his accidental death lawsuit against Dale and DoorDash on behalf of Cooper and her brother Sharif Ahmad, citing DoorDash’s “speed-based” business model as an integral part of the problem.

On Thursday, Webb updated this paperwork to target DoorDash directly. (He dismissed Dale from the lawsuit on a separate insurance settlement.) In addition to receiving interim relief, he has sought damages from the court that go beyond simple indemnity and seek to punish a defendant for outrageous conduct.

When DoorDash approved Dale as a driver, it overlooked her history of relocation violations and her driver’s license outside of the state of Oregon, which court records said she had not updated even though she had moved to California months earlier.

DoorDash has not inspected Dale’s vehicle, interviewed her in person, or advised her to install a hands-free cell phone cradle, Webb wrote.

Dale said during a testimony that she had placed the phone she was using to navigate next to the gear stick next to the driver’s seat and that she didn’t see Ahmad until she hit her. The video of the collision shows Dale hitting Ahmad at full speed.

“The fact that Dale did not stop or even slowed down indicates that she has completely taken her eyes off the road,” said the lawsuit.

DoorDash, Webb wrote, has a “duty of care” to properly train its drivers on road safety, regardless of whether they are viewed as employees or contractors.

“Nobody at DOORDASH told her that it was illegal to use an unmounted cell phone while driving, or advised her not to drive with an unmounted cell phone,” the lawsuit said. “To the extent that DOORDASH purports to be the ‘last mile infrastructure for local commerce’, it has a duty to ensure that its ‘infrastructure’ … has adequate security measures to prevent the illegal use of cell phones while driving or prevent. “

In the lawsuit, Webb says the DoorDash business model “will lead to increased rates of motor vehicle accidents, including accidents involving cars compared to pedestrians,” as drivers have incentives to “complete trips as quickly as possible”.

During their deliveries, DoorDash sends its drivers an SMS and sends mobile phone notifications through its app. Webb says the app will make it clear when drivers are moving, and that is when DoorDash should stop sending notifications.

“It is our position that DoorDash is legally responsible for this accident,” said Webb in response to a query from Berkeleyside. “If you don’t rethink your practice of texting drivers with unmounted cell phones while driving, there will be more accidents and tragedies.”

Webb has asked the court for a jury trial. The case is due to be heard by a judge in February.

“You have the opportunity to lead the industry in transition,” said Webb. “And I hope you do.”

Loved ones hold a vigil for Latitia Austin Ahmad on Ashby Avenue and Newbury Street in South Berkeley on August 5, 2021. Photo credit: Emilie Raguso

DoorDash told Berkeleyside that the company believes driver safety is important.

“We take Dasher’s safety very seriously,” said Briana Megid, a company spokeswoman, “that’s why we invest in products, policies, and partnerships that allow us to lead the industry while better serving all members of our community.”

However, most of his safety tips seem to be aimed at keeping drivers safe from crime. Berkeleyside could not find any mention of driver requirements or guidance regarding hands-free cell phone mounts in DoorDash’s online materials.

Berkeleyside has requested this information from DoorDash and will update this story when it is provided.

As a result of Proposition 22 approved in November 2020, DoorDash requires all California dashboards to pass a safety clearance that covers “safe driving and food handling”. More detailed information on this screening was not available at the time of publication.

Alameda County Superior Court records, previously reviewed by Berkeleyside, showed that DoorDash was named twice as a defendant in alleged injury lawsuits over the past year: once in connection with a collision between a driver and a cyclist in Oakland and once in connection with a collision with a driver and a man on a motorcycle in an unincorporated area of ​​the district. These cases are ongoing, but DoorDash has denied liability citing a number of laws.

Lawsuits against the company for wrongful death appear to be even rarer. However, in August, the children of a Louisiana woman who was reportedly killed when a DoorDash driver hit her in her front yard filed an unjustified homicide lawsuit citing DoorDash as a party to the case.

The grocery delivery service, which was founded by several Stanford students in 2013, also faced allegations of inflating customers, engaging in fraudulent business practices and taking tips from drivers. The company has denied many of the claims. However, last year DoorDash agreed to a $ 2.5 million settlement related to tip theft allegations.

But the company, now valued at more than $ 30 billion, has also had tremendous success. The company went public last year and turned its founders into “overnight billionaires.”

Featured photo: Emilie Raguso

Before you go…

Can you help us make a difference?

Berkeleyside reporters and editors are eager to cover our city and provide you with the information you need as an informed citizen. If you value what you get from Berkeleyside please join us with a. on tax deductible donation so that we can continue to carry out the local reporting that is important to you.

A generous group of supporters is there to match all new donations. You have pledged $ 50,000 to donate dollar for dollar by the December 31st deadline. Will you Chip in Berkeleyside today and double the impact of your donation?

The post DoorDash ought to cease texting its drivers whereas they’re shifting, lawsuit says appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.

Barry Joule, Francis Bacon’s former craftsman and close friend, has threatened to sue Tate for failing to publicly display a number of works by the late figurative artist that he donated in 2004. According to the Guardian, Joule has waited nearly two decades for the museum to host an exhibition around the $ 37 million donation, considered to be one of the most generous gifts the London institution has ever received, and 1,200 sketches, photographs and related items Includes documents. He also said he would revoke a promised gift of an important 1936 self-portrait by Bacon and nine other paintings by the artist from the same period.

“If the result is not satisfactory. . . by October 2021 on the terms and conditions of the Tate Joule Contract, ”Joule wrote on 3. I will request the full return of this my 2004 Tate Francis Bacon Studio Donation. And so the matter can ultimately be decided in court. “

Joule says Nicholas Serota, who was the director of the Tate at the time Joule proposed the gift, assured him in 2003 that the organization would host an exhibit on the subject within three years of the gift. A 2004 gift announcement from the institution appears to support this claim, which states: “Tate will undertake to study, photograph, and catalog the collection for the next three years before displaying these items and making them available for loan . ” Tate held a major exhibition of Bacon’s works in 2008, but did not include items from Joule’s gift. In 2017, Balshaw appeared as the director of the Tate, and Joule began writing to her to have the exhibition staged.

Joule, who met Bacon in 1978 when the Irish-born artist spied on him fixing a television antenna on a neighbor’s roof and invited him for a glass of champagne, said he donated the items to the Tate because it was Bacon’s favorite museum. He also donated about eighty drawings by Bacon to the Musée Picasso, which, according to Joule, were exhibited in a major exhibition in 2005 that combined his work with that of the renowned Spanish artist and was accompanied by a catalog.

Tate said she reached out to Joule to arrange a meeting in September on the matter.

ALL PICTURES

The post Francis Bacon’s Ex-Handyman Threatens Tate with Lawsuit over Donated Works appeared first on Los Gatos News And Events.