Reddy v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

On November 01, 2021, Ajay Reddy (“Plaintiff”), represented by G. Ware Cornell, Jr. of Cornell & Associates, PA, filed a civil lawsuit against Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX” or “Defendant”), seeking damages, a judgement for economic losses sustained by the Defendant, costs of action and other equitable reliefs for the Defendant’s alleged racial and national origin discrimination as well as retaliation under the FCRA. This case was filed in U.S District Court in the Middle District of Florida with Judge Anne C. Conway and Judge Embry J. Kidd presiding.

In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “REDDY was a fairing recovery engineer at SpaceX from October 28, 2019 to May 29, 2020. Plaintiff was the only Asian fairing recovery engineer.” And that, “Two white engineers were hired shortly before Plaintiff. Andrew Derhammer was transferred into fairing recovery from another position. Karl Burnett, like Plaintiff, was a fresh hire. Because of the novel and unique nature of the fairing recovery program, all three engineers were unfamiliar with its specific techniques. Burnett was given several days of training in California on the fairing recovery schema and thus acquired critical knowledge on how to perform his job. Prior to his transfer, Derhammer had access to engineers who designed the system and also acquired specialized knowledge. In contrast, REDDY was not given this or similar training. Later, SpaceX claimed that Burnett flew across the country so that he could review documentation relating to the system.” 

Plaintiff further alleged, “Throughout his time at SpaceX, REDDY was subjected to pervasive and severe harassment, including (but not limited to) wanton ridicule, intimidation, interference with his performance, and false statements about his performance. Plaintiff often complained about the above to his management, which was indifferent and refused to take any corrective action. This harassment and discrimination, in flagrant violation of corporate and federal policies and standards, markedly changed the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Having exhausted all other options, Plaintiff then made verbal and written complaints to Human Resources about the harassment he was subjected to and management’s refusal to correct the same, the disparate treatment he received from management, and how his lack of training was hampering his work performance. He hoped to receive the information he needed to excel at his job, and end the harassment and disparate treatment he faced.”

The Plaintiff went on to allege that “According to SpaceX’s position statement to the EEOC, REDDY’s final manager, Robert Hill, then terminated his employment based on claims that during a group interview event, Plaintiff “ma[de] facial expressions in reaction to answers the candidate provided[.]” SpaceX claims that these alleged expressions made the candidate “feel uncomfortable.” The Plaintiff then alleged that, “this bizarre pretext, that Plaintiff made someone feel uncomfortable with his face, is both a fabrication and a declaration of animus towards Plaintiff’s appearance.”

There are five claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim alleged is for violation of the race discrimination provisions of the FCRA and §1981. The second claim alleged is for violation of the national origin discrimination provisions of the FCRA. The third claim alleged is for violation of the race discrimination provisions of the FCRA and §1981 and discrimination on the basis of race. The fourth claim alleged is for altering the terms and conditions of employment in violation of the FCRA and §1981. The fifth claim alleged is for breach of contract.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to pass an order for restitutionary and compensatory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and expert fees as provided by the FCRA and 42 U.S.C. §1988, entry of judgment for economic losses, costs of action and such other equitable reliefs as the Court may deem proper.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.