Tesla Seeks Arbitration in Lawsuit Over Alleged Assault at Texas Factory

Worker Argues Claims Should Be Heard in Court

Judge Weighs Where Case Should Proceed

AUSTIN, Texas — Tesla is asking a judge to deny a court trial in a lawsuit filed by a woman who says she was assaulted by a co-worker at the company’s Gigafactory Texas, arguing the case should instead be handled through arbitration.

The dispute was argued during a hearing Thursday in state District Court in Austin, where Judge Daniella DeSeta Lyttle said she would review both sides’ arguments before making a decision.

Dispute Over Arbitration Agreement

Lillian Brady filed the lawsuit last month after police identified Ndiaga Diagne as the suspect in a March 1 mass shooting in downtown Austin that left three people dead and 15 injured.

Tesla’s attorneys say Brady agreed to resolve employment-related disputes through arbitration when she was hired. The company points to a clause stating that “any and all disputes arising from or related to your employment go to arbitration.”

Brady’s attorneys do not dispute that she signed the agreement but argue her claims fall outside its scope. They say the agreement does not clearly apply to her situation and cannot apply if the case involves sexual assault.

During the hearing, Tesla attorney Joshua Romero argued the arbitration agreement is broad and should govern the case. He said the claim that the case involves sexual assault is unsupported, calling it “absurd to say it’s a sexual assault case.”

Allegations Against Tesla

Brady alleges she was physically assaulted by Diagne in early December inside the factory. She claims Tesla failed to properly monitor common areas or supervise activities, “creating an unreasonably dangerous condition.”

Her lawsuit also accuses the company of failing to adequately vet employees and of withholding Diagne’s identity while she tried to pursue charges against him.

Brady’s lawyers argued that Tesla should not be allowed to rely on arbitration selectively. “They cannot use this as a sword and a shield,” they told the judge.

They also argued that if a non-employee had been assaulted in the same area, that person would have been able to bring a lawsuit in court.

Romero responded that non-employees would not have access to the facility, describing security at Gigafactory Texas as “essentially Fort Knox.”

Evidence and Public Access Dispute

The case also involves a dispute over evidence, including video footage from Tesla’s security cameras. The Travis County Sheriff’s Office obtained video of the incident days before the March shooting.

Brady’s attorneys have requested access to that footage and other records. They argue the case should remain in court to ensure transparency.

“They want it to go to arbitration so no one else sees the video, because then it becomes confidential, and we want to make sure it stays public,” attorney Bob Hilliard said after the hearing.

Plaintiff Questions Earlier Response

In an earlier interview, Brady said she initially did not plan to sue Tesla but believed the company should have identified Diagne sooner.

“I think this needs to be brought out that this individual probably wouldn’t have done this tragedy that he did… if something would have been done by Tesla,” she said.

The judge has not yet ruled on whether the case will proceed in court or be sent to arbitration.