A judge for the US District Court for the Northern District of California [official website] refused [opinion, PDF] Monday to dismiss two forced labor claims against Tesla [corporate website] in a lawsuit filed by two former workers.

The former workers worked for subcontractor Vuzem, who worked for Eisenmann, which manufactures specialized paint shop equipment. Eisenmann installed equipment at Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Deere & Company, LaX Fabricating, REAHU, Volkswagen and BMW. The plaintiffs specifically worked on installing a paint shop at Tesla’s facility in Fremont, California.

The plaintiffs were hired on B-1 visas and came from Slovenia and Croatia. The lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs were forced to work more than 250 hours per month, received one in 14 days off and were paid under minimum wage. The lawsuit also alleges that Vuzem threatened to withhold medical benefits, visas, pay and immigration benefits if they were two sick to work or reported a job injury.

The lawsuit named 36 defendants, eight of which were involved in the current motion to dismiss. Claims that the defendants violated the False Claims Act, violated minimum wage and overtime provisions, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and violated Alabama forced labor laws were dismissed against all eight defendants. Claims that the defendants violated Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) and California Civil Code § 52.5 was dismissed against six defendants, but allowed against Tesla and Eisenmann.

The judge found that the alleged immigration threats, financial threats, litigation threats and  threats to withhold medical care were sufficient to make a claim under TVPRA. Although Vuzem is the only one accused of making the threats, Tesla and Eisenmann knew or should have known about the mistreatment of the workers. Therefore, Tesla and Eisenmann would also be liable. Telsa and Eisenmann were found to be liable under California’s forced labor law § 52.5 because it has the same basis for liability as TVPRA.

Tesla has also faced a class action lawsuit [JURIST report] filed in April 2017 over the car’s self driving function, which was alleged to be “essentially unusable and demonstrably dangerous.” Self-driving cars [JURIST op-ed] have faced an uncertain regulatory future as federal and state governments attempt to develop regulations on the industry,