Former Tesla employee sues over alleged retaliation after harassment complaint

Derek Smith Law Group says it represents a former Tesla worker who claims the company retaliated after he reported sexual harassment, including ordering a drug test and firing him days later. The Santa Clara County case raises questions about workplace retaliation and California’s cannabis protections.

Why it matters: - The lawsuit adds to scrutiny of how employers respond when workers report sexual harassment. - The case also invokes California’s off-duty cannabis protections, which can limit workplace discipline tied to legal use away from work. - Mr. Soto is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, plus injunctive relief and correction of his personnel records.

What happened: - Derek Smith Law Group says it represents Luis Soto, a former Tesla employee, in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. - The case is titled Luis Soto v. Tesla, Inc., et al., Case No. 26CV493661, and was filed May 12, 2026. - Zachary Rosenbaum, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, represents Soto. - Soto alleges Tesla ordered him to take a drug test about an hour after telling him its investigation into his sexual harassment complaint was closed. - Soto alleges Tesla fired him one week later.

The details: - Soto says he joined Tesla in February 2024 as an hourly estimator at the company’s collision center in Sunnyvale, California. - He says he received positive recognition, monetary awards and multiple raises. - Soto alleges that beginning around March 2025, his manager subjected him to repeated unwelcome sexualized conduct, including touching him without consent and commenting on his appearance. - He alleges that on Oct. 7, 2025, the manager made unwanted sexual physical contact with him at his workstation. - Soto says he made a formal complaint to Tesla Human Resources the next day. - Soto alleges Tesla Human Resources told him at about 1 p.m. on Nov. 4, 2025, that the harassment investigation was complete and closed and that “appropriate action” would be taken. - He says two supervisors then accused him of “smelling like marijuana” and ordered a drug test about an hour later. - Soto alleges no other employees were accused or tested and that he had no prior discipline or documented performance concerns. - He says his urine and alcohol tests were negative and that he showed no objective signs of impairment at work. - Soto alleges Tesla later told him a saliva test returned a positive cannabis-related result. - He contends any cannabis use, if any, occurred off duty and away from the workplace. - According to the proposed amended complaint, Tesla placed Soto on unpaid leave effective Nov. 4, 2025. - Soto says Tesla denied his request for an appeal or retest. - He alleges Tesla allowed the manager to return to work on Nov. 10, 2025, while he remained on leave. - Soto says Tesla fired him by email on Nov. 11, 2025, citing the saliva test result and an alleged policy violation. - The proposed amended complaint asserts claims under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act for sexual harassment and hostile work environment, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and retaliation, and cannabis discrimination under Government Code section 12954. - The complaint also includes a wrongful termination claim in violation of public policy. - Section 12954 became operative on Jan. 1, 2024, and generally bars California employers, with specified exceptions, from discriminating against or penalizing workers for using cannabis off the job and away from the workplace. - Soto seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive and equitable relief, and a jury trial.

Between the lines: - The timing alleged in the complaint links the closed harassment investigation, the drug test and the termination into a retaliation theory. - Tesla’s reliance on a saliva test, rather than only the negative urine and alcohol tests Soto describes, is central to the dispute. - The case also tests how California courts may handle claims that off-duty cannabis use was used as a workplace discipline pretext. - The allegations in the release have not been proven or decided by the court.

What's next: - Tesla has already filed an answer to the original complaint, and the defendants can contest the allegations in court. - The parties have signed a joint stipulation seeking leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint. - Rosenbaum says the firm expects to present Soto’s claims in court.

The bottom line: - The lawsuit centers on whether Tesla retaliated against a worker after he reported sexual harassment, then used a drug test result to justify termination.