Tesla has that covered as well: https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-7

Some choice quotes from the decision based on facts proven in the case about endemic racism at the Fremont, California factory:

"This was the second jury that imposed such a high ratio, and its verdict is appropriate in light of the endemic racism at the Tesla factory and Tesla's repeated failure to rectify it."

"Diaz testified that at one point, Martinez threatened to physically attack him at work and yelled at him, “You [N-words] aren't S-H-I-T.” Tr. 3-610:2-612:7. Diaz complained to a supervisor, Ed Romero, and asked him to check the surveillance cameras, though Diaz's subsequent email complaint did not specifically mention racial insults. Tr. 3-612:8-614:23; see also Tr. 3-546:25-548:2 (Romero confirming this was recounted in an email). Tesla did not follow up, show Diaz the video, or interview witnesses after that event. Tr. 3-546:25-548:2, 612:8-614:23. Jackson testified that he interviewed Diaz and Martinez after the incident but did not interview the eyewitness, Rothaj Foster, because he was told by his boss to stop the investigation before it was complete. Tr. 2-387:10-390:18, 2-394:24-395:11. Jackson said he had “[v]ery little” control over how he investigated complaints. Tr. 2-396:8-397:12. Jackie Delgado Smith, a Human Resources representative, testified that Tesla HR was never told of the incident. Tr. 5-954:15-955:6. Subsequently, Diaz and Martinez were both given verbal warnings. Tr. 2395:21-396:7. Martinez still works at Tesla. Tr. 3-571:11."

"Diaz also testified that he complained to Romero several times about being called the N-word. Tr. 3-613:5-14. Romero agreed that he learned Diaz had been complaining about racist conduct, see Tr. 3-542:22-24, 543:13-14, though Romero said Diaz did not complain directly to Romero at least until the Timbreza incident, Tr. 3:561:1-4. Romero testified that he did not personally investigate Diaz's complaints and was specifically told by Tesla to not personally investigate the Timbreza incident. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Diaz and Romero both testified that Tesla never fired anyone for using the N-word. Tr. 3-552:10-19, 615:13-15."

"In addition to verbal harassment, Diaz encountered physical symbols of racism and hostility throughout his time at Tesla. On his second day at work, he saw racist graffiti in the bathroom, and continued to see the N-word and swastikas in bathrooms throughout the rest of his employment. Tr. 3-623:1-8. Another Black employee and later supervisor, Michael Wheeler, testified that he regularly saw racist graffiti, including the N-word and swastikas, and that Diaz reported the racist graffiti he saw to Wheeler. Tr. 2-346:17-347:17."

"As they did after the first trial, these factors again favor a high punitive damages award here. First and most importantly, Tesla's actions were grievously reprehensible. Diaz was subjected to a grossly racist workplace, with racist conduct perpetuated not only by coworkers or subordinates but also-and perhaps especially-by supervisors like Martinez, who called Diaz racist slurs and drew the racist picaninny, and Hurtado, who directed the N-word at Diaz over 30 times and informed Diaz that he wished he could get all “N-words” fired. Cf. Flores, 873 F.3d at 760; Zhang, 339 F.3d at 1043. Reports to authority often went unanswered and when the company responded, it often failed to interview witnesses or review security footage. Worse yet, a supervisor who learned of Diaz's complaints subsequently failed to investigate and was in fact told by Tesla to not personally investigate the complaint. Tr. 3-541:22-542:1, 544:21-545:2, 549:13-550:16. Another supervisor was told to stop investigating before he reached a conclusion, and Diaz and his harasser ended up being reprimanded for the conduct directed at Diaz. See Tr. 2387:10-390:18, 395:21-396:7. Martinez, a Tesla supervisor and the main perpetrator of racist conduct, still works at Tesla, nearly a decade after he forced Diaz to endure repeated cruelty and shame. Not only did the company turn a blind eye to the racism, but the jury also could have interpreted the evidence to show that Tesla knew what it was supposed to do and affirmatively chose to not carry out the proper responses. Though Tesla argues its conduct was merely negligent at best, see Mot. Jdgmt. 4:19-5:17 & n.2, the jury could have credited the testimony of any number of witnesses that stated otherwise and demonstrated the company's intentionality and recklessness with respect to failing to maintain a safe, harassment-free workplace."