Connect with us

News

Tesla factory worker sues company over alleged race and sexual harassment

Published

on

A new lawsuit filed by a former Tesla employee alleges that the company did not take action after what they claim was overwhelming evidence of a hostile workplace at the company’s Fremont, California factory.

Dewitt Lambert is being represented by the California Civil Rights Law Group who filed the suit this week which details charges including Race Harassment, Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Retaliation, Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation, Threats of Violence in Violation of the Ralph Act, Violation of the Bane Act, Failure to Accommodate, Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process, and Assault and Battery.

The suit and accompanying cellphone video which was taken in 2015, during the timeframe of the alleged harassment, show a tirade of racial slurs and strong language taking place inside a partially assembled Tesla Model S in the Fremont factory.

“The complaint alleges that Tesla failed, under California law, to take immediate and appropriate corrective action on Mr. Lambert’s behalf,” said Organ. “Because of this inaction my client is claiming psychological harm and medical problems. Tesla is liable for Mr. Lambert’s damages because it failed to adequately investigate and prevent damaging abuse from taking place in the workplace.”

Advertisement

The California Civil Rights Law Group sent Teslarati the video above and accompanying press release that includes a 10-month of the alleged discrimination, complaints and promotions of offending employees. It is not clear if the promotions are related to the allegations but it could certainly be seen as a motivating factor for the suit. It seems to indicate that Lambert was not able to get promoted while being subjected to the alleged workplace abuse while his supervisors were rewarded in light of the behavior.

A representative from Tesla provides Teslarati with the following statement in response to Lambert’s suit.

We believe strongly in having a good working environment and that people should look forward to coming to work every day. That means Tesla must always aspire to be transparent, respectful, fair and just. When we hear complaints or concerns raised by our employees, we take them very seriously.  

A video recently came to light showing behavior by a group of employees at our factory acting in a way that we found disappointing and contrary to our values. It appears that a lawsuit is now being filed against Tesla in connection with this video. In the interest of transparency, we want to share what we know: 

Advertisement
  • Based on interviews we have done, in April 2016, an employee named Dewitt Lambert got into an argument with a coworker and threatened him with violence. Dewitt, this coworker, and other employees had been part of a group of friends who worked together at the factory and also socialized together outside of work. The other employee filmed Dewitt making the threat and Dewitt mistakenly believed that some of these other employees had provided the video to HR in order to get him in trouble. (In actuality, the video wasn’t provided to HR). 
  • Later that day, in an apparent attempt to turn the tables on the complaint that he thought had been made against him, Dewitt filed a complaint with HR about these other employees, claiming it was they who had mistreated him, including by using racially insensitive language.
  • HR personnel investigated, interviewing all of the employees who were reportedly involved. That investigation turned up conflicting accounts of what happened, with other employees saying that Dewitt had the “dirtiest mouth” they had “ever heard,” including using the same racially insensitive language that he had complained about. In the end, there was no objective evidence that anything inappropriate occurred toward Dewitt. As a result, our HR team coached this group of employees on the importance of behaving professionally and the investigation was closed.
  • Dewitt thereafter was transferred to another work area where he would have no further contact with those he complained about. There are no records of him complaining about new events for about a year after this. It seems that the transfer had its intended effect. 
  • On July 6, 2016, during an unrelated conversation with HR in which Dewitt was receiving a final written warning for posting proprietary photos of Tesla equipment on social media against company policy, Dewitt showed HR an old video (taken in late 2015) containing the kind of language that he had previously complained about. This was the first time any video was mentioned or shown. The investigation was reopened. 
  • The HR representative who had led the prior investigation left the company two days later on July 8, 2016 and didn’t hand off the investigation to anyone else. 
  • Although Dewitt continued to have regular interaction with HR on a host of topics, for which he thanked them for their support, we have no evidence indicating that he came to HR with any further complaints of this nature. Then, through an attorney, Dewitt submitted a letter six months later demanding a very large payment or he would file a lawsuit. 
  • Once again, we looked into his claims and found that the co-workers Dewitt complained about described the situation very differently. They claimed once again they had all been friends and socialized outside of work, and that all of them (including Dewitt) used similar insensitive language with each other on a regular, ongoing basis, including in social contexts outside of the workplace.
  • Confirming this, one of the employees Dewitt accused shared personal instant messages (attached) which showed Dewitt using the same language when describing other colleagues involved in the argument from April 2016. One of those messages indicated why he apparently decided to make these accusations – he was upset because of his belief that these colleagues had turned a video into HR showing Dewitt threatening one of them. The employee stated this was what led Dewitt to conjure up false claims about these other individuals. 
  • Dewitt alleges that he was not promoted as retaliation for having made complaints. This is false. Dewitt was promoted 12 months ago, and the reason he wasn’t given a second promotion within 12 months is that, among other things, he had been given a final written warning for posting pictures of confidential Tesla technology on Facebook in clear violation of company policy.

That brings us to today. We have been told by Dewitt’s attorney that they will be following up on their previous demand for a large payment by filing a lawsuit. The lawsuit has been timed to coincide with a carefully planned media blitz in an attempt to create a disingenuous narrative that is at odds with the facts. 

It’s clear that our investigation should have continued uninterrupted until all the facts were known. We have terminated several employees based on what we’ve learned and have suspended Dewitt with pay so that we can finish investigating the circumstances of the instant messages that were just provided to us about his threats of violence against coworkers. We will continue to take action as necessary, including parting ways with anyone whose behavior prevents Tesla from being a great place to work. However, it’s also clear that Dewitt’s version of events is not supported by the facts. It would never be right to take action based on an accusation alone — there must be objective evidence or credible witnesses to ensure that an innocent person is not treated unfairly.

It is night and day to work at a company with strong purpose and great team spirit, where people look forward to coming to work. Monday either feels like jail or joy, and the people you work with make all the difference in the world.

 

The full lawsuit can be seen here:

Advertisement

https://www.teslarati.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Tesla-Complaint-Filed-2017.03.27.pdf

I'm passionate about clean technology, sustainability and life. I've worked in manufacturing, IT, project management and environmental...and enjoy unpacking complex topics in layman's terms. TSLA investor. Find more of my words on my website or follow me on Twitter for all the latest. Tesla Referral link: http://ts.la/kyle623

Advertisement
Comments

News

Honda gives up on all-EV future: ‘Not realistic’

Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.

Published

on

honda logo with red paint
Ivan Radic, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Honda has given up on a previous plan to completely changeover to EVs by 2040, a new report states. The company’s CEO, Toshihiro Mibe, said that the idea is “not realistic.”

Mibe believes the demand for its gas vehicles is certainly strong enough and has changed “beyond expectations.” As many drivers went for EVs a few years back, hybrids are becoming more popular for consumers as they offer the best of both worlds.

Mibe said (via Motor1):

“Because of the uncertainty in the business environment and also the customer demand, is changing beyond our expectation and, therefore, we have judged that it’ll be difficult to achieve. That ratio [100-percent electric in 2040] is not realistic as of now. We have withdrawn this target.”

Advertisement

Instead of going all-electric, Honda still wants to oblige by its hopes to be net carbon neutral by 2050. It will do this by focusing on those popular hybrid powertrains, planning to launch 15 of them by March 2030.

Honda will invest 4.4 trillion yen, or almost $28 billion, to build hybrid powertrains built around four and six-cylinder gas engines.

There are so many companies abandoning their all-electric ambitions or even slowing their roll on building them so quickly. Ford, General Motors, Mercedes, and Nissan have all retreated from aggressive EV targets by either cancelling, delaying, or pausing the development of electric models.

Hyundai’s 2030 targets rely on mixed offerings of electric, hybrid & hydrogen vehicles

Advertisement

Early-decade pledges from multiple brands proved overly ambitious as infrastructure lags, battery costs remain high in some markets, and many buyers prefer hybrids for their convenience and range. Toyota has long championed hybrids, while others have quietly extended internal-combustion timelines.

For Honda—historically known for reliable gasoline engines—this shift leverages its core strengths while buying time to refine electric technology. Whether the hybrid-heavy strategy will protect market share in an increasingly competitive landscape remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the gas engine is far from dead at Honda, unfortunately.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Delta Airlines rejects Starlink, and the reason will probably shock you

In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.

Published

on

Delta Airlines Airbus photographed April 2024 Delta-owned. No expiration date, unrestricted use.

SpaceX frontman Elon Musk explained on Wednesday why commercial airline Delta got cold feet over offering Starlink for stable internet on its flights — and the reason will probably shock you.

In a pointed exchange on X, Elon Musk defended SpaceX’s uncompromising approach to Starlink’s in-flight internet service, explaining why Delta Air Lines walked away from a deal.

Delta rejected Starlink because it insisted on routing all connectivity through its branded “Delta Sync” portal rather than allowing a simple Starlink experience.

Instead, the airline partnered with Amazon’s Project Kuiper—rebranded as Amazon Leo—for high-speed Wi-Fi on up to 500 aircraft, with rollout targeted for 2028. At the time of the announcement, Kuiper had roughly 300 satellites in orbit, while Starlink operated more than 10,400.

Advertisement

The use of the “Delta Sync” portal would not work for SpaceX, as Musk went on to say that:

“SpaceX requires that there be no annoying ‘portal’ to use Starlink. Starlink WiFi must just work effortlessly every time, as though you were at home. Delta wanted to make it painful, difficult and expensive for their customers. Hard to see how that is a winning strategy.”

Musk doubled down in a follow-up post:

“Yes, SpaceX deliberately accepted lower revenue deals with airlines in exchange for making Starlink super easy to use and available to all passengers.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

SpaceX has structured its airline agreements to prioritize zero-friction access—no captive portals, no SkyMiles logins, no paywalls or ads blocking basic connectivity.

While this means forgoing higher-margin deals that would let carriers monetize the service more aggressively, it ensures Starlink feels like home broadband at 35,000 feet. Passengers on partner airlines such as United, Qatar Airways, and Air France have already praised the service for enabling seamless video calls, streaming, and work mid-flight without interruptions.

Delta’s choice reflects a different philosophy. By keeping Wi-Fi behind its Delta Sync ecosystem, the airline aims to drive loyalty program engagement and control the digital passenger journey. Yet, critics argue this short-term control comes at the expense of immediate competitiveness.

Airlines already installing Starlink are pulling ahead in customer satisfaction surveys, while Delta passengers face years of reliance on slower, legacy systems until Leo launches.

Advertisement

SpaceX’s decision to trade revenue for simplicity will pay off in the longer term, as Starlink is already positioning itself as the default high-speed option for carriers that value passenger satisfaction over incremental fees.

Musk’s focus on creating not only a great service but also a reasonable user experience highlights SpaceX’s prowess with Starlink as it continues to expand across new partners and regions.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla gathers 93,000 FSD miles in a country where FSD isn’t approved – here’s how

Tesla has quietly logged an impressive 93,000 miles (roughly 150,000 km) of autonomous driving at its Giga Berlin factory—using Full Self-Driving (FSD) in a country where the technology remains unavailable to consumers on public roads.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla AI | X

Tesla has gathered 93,000 Full Self-Driving miles in a country where Full Self-Driving is not even approved. Here’s how.

Tesla has quietly logged an impressive 93,000 miles (roughly 150,000 km) of autonomous driving at its Giga Berlin factory—using Full Self-Driving (FSD) in a country where the technology remains unavailable to consumers on public roads.

The milestone, revealed alongside news that Giga Berlin has now built 750,000 Model Y vehicles, highlights how Tesla is putting its AI to work in one of the most controlled environments imaginable: it’s own factory floor.

Every Model Y that rolls off the final assembly line at Giga Berlin doesn’t need a human driver to reach the outbound lot. Instead, the freshly built vehicles engage FSD and navigate themselves across the factory campus.

Advertisement

The route—from the end of the production line through marked internal pathways to the staging area where cars await delivery or export—is entirely on private property. No public roads, no mixed traffic, and no regulatory hurdles for on-road autonomous operation.

It’s a closed-loop system: wide lanes, predictable layouts, minimal pedestrians, and consistent conditions that make it one of the simplest proving grounds for the software.

Advertisement

A short factory tour video shared by Tesla Manufacturing shows General Assembly team member Jan explaining the process. Gesturing beside a glossy black Model Y still wearing its protective wrap, he notes the cumulative distance the fleet has covered autonomously.

Tesla Giga Berlin seems to be using FSD Unsupervised to move Model Y units

The cars handle the short drive flawlessly, freeing up workers who would otherwise spend hours shuttling vehicles manually. For a high-volume plant like Giga Berlin, the time and labor savings add up quickly. Even small gains in cycle time per car can reclaim valuable space in the outbound lot and streamline logistics.

This internal deployment serves multiple purposes. First, it delivers zero-cost validation data. Each factory run exposes FSD to real-world physics—acceleration, steering precision, obstacle avoidance—in a repeatable setting far safer than public testing.

Advertisement

Second, it demonstrates the system’s readiness at scale. If FSD can reliably move thousands of brand-new cars without intervention inside a busy factory, it underscores the robustness of the vision-based, end-to-end neural network Tesla has been refining.

Critics often point to Europe’s cautious regulatory stance on unsupervised autonomy, yet Tesla has turned that limitation into an advantage. While owners in Germany still cannot activate consumer FSD on highways or city streets, the software is already proving its worth behind the factory gates.

The 93,000 miles represent not just internal efficiency gains but a subtle flex: the cars are manufactured ready to navigate autonomously, at least in the bounds of the factory. It’s a big feather in the cap of FSD, even if regulators have yet to green-light broader use.

As Giga Berlin continues ramping output, expect this autonomous logistics loop to grow. What began as a practical workaround for moving finished vehicles has quietly become one of the most compelling real-world showcases of FSD’s potential—right in the heart of regulated Europe. Tesla isn’t waiting for approval to perfect its autonomy; it’s already driving the future, one factory mile at a time.

Advertisement
Continue Reading