Lucid Motors’ ex-chief engineer, Eric Bach, in a federal lawsuit filed this week accuses the electric-vehicle company of wrongful termination and discrimination after he was reassigned “collateral” duties upon sharing concerns about a senior HR executive who reportedly called him a “German Nazi,” sidelining Bach before he was let go. The complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, revolves around events from late 2024 through 2025 when Bach claims he lost important duties and access to leadership forums before being let go.
While Lucid described Bach’s departure publicly as just that, internally the decision was made after months of conflict stemming from a workplace culture probe and alleged anti-German slurs by company leaders, the complaint claims. The lawsuit comes at a precarious time for the EV maker, which is boosting output of the Gravity SUV and working on developing a midsize platform to target a more mainstream market.
Allegations in the complaint by former chief engineer
Bach, a decade-long veteran who says he has overseen hardware engineering, product management and corporate planning at the company, alleges that in early 2025 Lucid removed him from oversight of powertrain after investigating workplace culture. He claims he was singled out because of his German ethnicity. In mid-2025, he heard that a top HR leader had referred to him with an ethnic slur, according to the complaint; he encouraged a colleague to make a report about it and later filed his own internal complaint detailing similar behavior by another executive.
The complaint said Lucid “acknowledged” the HR comment, and that subsequently Bach was sidelined from board meetings and encouraged to resign in October 2025. He says he declined and on November 5, 2025, was fired. The complaint adds that high-level officials had hinted earlier that his future was bright: Lucid’s chairman, Turqi Alnowaiser, allegedly praised Bach’s work while board member Andrew Liveris suggested he was in line for the CTO job and could be a long-term supervisory figure.
It should be noted that these are just allegations, and Lucid has yet to file its legal response in court documents. Companies frequently claim in such cases that management changes are motivated by performance metrics or business conditions, and not by illegal bias or retaliation. The answer itself and any motion practice will establish both sides of the matter.
Legal stakes and standards under federal and state law
The core allegations — wrongful termination, national-origin discrimination and retaliation — are brought under federal law using the protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and powerful California Fair Employment and Housing Act statutes. Retaliation is one of the most frequent reasons complaints are filed against employers with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; it has been included in more than 50% of charges over the past several years, which illustrates how rampant workplace-conduct disputes have become.
To win, Bach will have to show that he engaged in protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and there was a causal connection — while Lucid can respond with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the restructuring and termination. If the case proceeds, discovery could turn on an internal investigation into workplace culture, internal communication about Bach’s scope as it relates to any alleged slur and fallout from that incident.
Possible remedies might include back pay, along with compensatory and punitive damages, or injunctive relief that could force changes to HR processes. Outside of the legal exposure, major culture cases can have an impact on talent retention, recruiting and investor confidence.
A high-stakes moment for Lucid amid product ramp-up
The suit comes as Lucid maneuvers through a capital-intensive ramp. The Gravity SUV will be launched even as the company is developing a midsize platform suitable for lower pricing at its own stage of development. It has relied on deep-pocketed support from the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia at a time when EV sector dynamics have been volatile with price competition, financing costs and supply chain pressures.
Changes in engineering leadership can have an outsize effect on Lucid, whose brand hinges on efficiency and range. The Lucid Air created a high benchmark with the breaking of that 500-mile range bar, and much of it was achieved through the company’s powertrain and software combination. Any disruption in the powertrain and systems engineering could put product timelines at risk, or complicate cost-down targets that are important as it scales.
Industry precedents and culture risk in Silicon Valley
High-profile culture and discrimination cases at Silicon Valley companies, and the auto industry, have rewritten governance procedures and HR practices. California’s Civil Rights Department and the EEOC have brought significant enforcement actions in recent years, and companies from ride-hailing to self-driving cars have overhauled their reporting lines and investigation methods following employee whistleblower statements or third-party inquiries.
For investors, culture risk is simply another form of operational due diligence. Lapses in governance can lead to legal fees, leadership churn, and delayed execution — especially damaging at manufacturing businesses where timing and quality are unforgiving. As a young carmaker, Lucid has little breathing room as it treads the fine line between burning cash and commercializing new products.
What to watch as the lawsuit progresses through court
The next step would be Lucid’s answer to the petition, in which they may attack the credentials of those claims or certain allegations. If the case does go forward, discovery is likely to focus on:
- The workplace culture inquiry
- Emails and notes pertaining to meetings about Bach’s changing responsibilities
- Any corroboration of the slang word
Depositions of HR leaders, board members, and engineering colleagues could be pivotal.
It is common for employment disputes to be settled, but if the suit proceeds toward a trial, it could illuminate rare details about decision-making inside of a young automaker scaling from being a niche luxury EV flagship to an automaker producing higher volumes. Either way, the case serves as a broader indictment across EV: culture, compliance and execution are inseparable when the road to market leadership runs through such complex, unforgiving industrial programs.
