Eric Bach’s Lucid Lawsuit: Firing, Discrimination, and Section 1981

The Eric Bach Lucid lawsuit is a federal discrimination and retaliation case filed on December 8, 2025 by Lucid Group’s former Senior Vice President of Product and Chief Engineer, who alleges the electric vehicle maker fired him after he reported that a senior HR executive had called him a “German Nazi.” Bach filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; the court has since sent the dispute to private arbitration.¹

What Bach Alleges Happened

Bach, a German and British citizen who speaks English with a German accent, says he learned in mid-2025 that Rachel Rivera, Lucid’s Senior Director of Human Resources, had been disparaging him to other employees and had referred to him as a “German Nazi.” He alleges the phrase was used as a racial slur tied to his national origin and ancestry.²³

Rivera reported to Gale Halsey, Lucid’s Senior Vice President of People. According to the complaint, the remark surfaced during an internal workplace-culture investigation the HR department had launched in late 2024, and Bach alleges that inquiry was “tainted by HR’s racist beliefs” and used to strip him of responsibilities including oversight of the powertrain division and participation in board meetings. The complaint also alleges Gemma Parker, Lucid’s VP of Program Management, told colleagues she “hates” Bach “so much.”⁴²

After learning of the remark, Bach encouraged the colleague who told him to file a formal report, reported the matter through internal channels himself, and filed a separate internal complaint against another Lucid vice president for what the lawsuit describes as “similarly racist behavior.”²⁴

Bach alleges Lucid’s own investigation confirmed Rivera had made the “German Nazi” remark, but that Halsey characterized the slur as merely “negative statements” and moved Rivera into a newly created role as “Senior Director of Talent Development & Culture, People Operations, and the HR Institute” instead of firing her. When Bach protested to Halsey that Rivera should have been terminated for creating a hostile work environment, the company responded, he says, by blaming him for “unprofessional behavior” and continuing to reduce his responsibilities.⁵³⁶

The Firing

On October 22, 2025, Lucid attempted to force Bach to resign. He refused, and two days later, through counsel, formally protested the discrimination and retaliation. Less than two weeks after that, on November 5, 2025, Lucid fired him. An internal press release said only that Bach had “departed” the company.³⁵⁷⁴

The complaint alleges that on November 12, 2025, a week after the firing, Lucid provided false statements to an industry blog blaming Bach for production delays. The lawsuit describes that as public disparagement intended to damage his professional reputation.³

Bach had joined Lucid in 2015 and rose to Chief Engineer over a decade there, playing a central role in the Air sedan and Gravity SUV programs. The complaint says the company recognized his work with merit-based raises, bonuses, and more than $14 million in equity, and that board member Andrew Liveris had suggested he was in line to become Chief Technology Officer and potentially CEO.³⁶⁴

The Claims and Relief Sought

The complaint asserts three causes of action:¹

Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, based on race, ancestry, and national origin as a German citizen.
Retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for reporting the discriminatory conduct.
Wrongful termination in violation of public policy under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Bach seeks compensatory damages for lost wages and earnings, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages, describing Lucid’s conduct as “reckless, malicious, willful and wanton.” He has demanded a jury trial and indicated he intends to file separate charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Civil Rights Department.³

Bach is represented by Wigdor LLP in New York and Robinson Markevitch & Parker LLP in California. Wigdor partner Valdi Licul said in a statement: “It is especially heinous when the racist rumors come from a company’s Human Resources department, whose core function is to eliminate discrimination in the workplace.”⁵⁶

Lucid’s Response

Lucid has denied the allegations. In a statement provided to TechCrunch, the company said: “In our opinion, Mr. Bach’s legal claims are absurd. We are confident that the facts revealed through the course of litigation will establish the legitimate issues leading to Mr. Bach’s termination.”²

An unnamed company source called the allegations “baseless” and attributed Bach’s departure to a leadership restructuring and concerns about his management of product development, citing “widespread software issues, manufacturing delays, quality control problems” and asserting his management caused a “wide cascade of problems.”²

Lucid did face real production trouble during Bach’s final year. The early rollout of the Gravity SUV in 2025 was hampered by supply-chain shortages of magnets, aluminum, and chips, and software-related quality issues slowed customer deliveries, according to interim CEO Marc Winterhoff. For all of 2025, Lucid produced 18,378 vehicles and delivered 15,841, a 55% increase over 2024 but well below the 135,000 deliveries the company had projected in 2021.⁸⁹ Bach’s complaint casts those problems as a pretext; Lucid casts them as the reason for his removal.

A Legal Question Section 1981 Raises

One notable question in the case is whether Bach’s claims fit within 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal civil rights statute historically interpreted to cover racial discrimination. Because Bach is of German and European descent, courts may examine whether his national-origin allegations qualify as race-based claims under a statute originally designed to protect groups treated as non-white. The Supreme Court expanded the statute in 1987 to cover “ancestry and ethnicity,” but the boundary between those concepts and “national origin” remains unsettled in lower courts.

Where the Case Stands Now

The case, Bach v. Lucid Group, Inc. (Case No. 3:25-cv-10499), is assigned to Judge Trina L. Thompson in the Northern District of California. On January 23, 2026, Lucid filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that Bach’s employment agreement required the dispute to be resolved outside of court. Bach opposed the motion on February 6, 2026, but Judge Thompson granted it on April 15, 2026, staying the federal proceedings and sending the case to private arbitration.¹

Bach filed a status report on the arbitration schedule and progress on May 21, 2026.¹⁰ The court’s scheduling order contemplates alternative dispute resolution being completed by July 17, 2027, with a case management conference set for September 10, 2026, and a tentative jury trial window of November 29 through December 14, 2027 if the case returns to court.¹

1
Justia. Bach v. Lucid Group, Inc.
2
The Drive. Lucid Motors Fired Chief Engineer After He Complained About Being Called German Nazi: Lawsuit
3
The Drive. Bach v. Lucid Complaint Filed
4
Yahoo Finance. Lucid Motors Former Chief Engineer Sues
5
Eletric-Vehicles.com. Lucid’s Former Product Chief Sues Company for Discrimination
6
Wigdor LLP. Wigdor Files Discrimination and Retaliation Complaint Against Lucid Group Inc.
7
TechCrunch. Lucid Motors Former Chief Engineer Sues for Wrongful Termination and Discrimination
8
CNBC. Lucid’s Gravity SUV Arrives With High Expectations and Big Risks
9
EV.com. Lucid Doubles EV Production After Early Gravity SUV Challenges
10
PACER Monitor. Bach v. Lucid Group, Inc.