News
Tesla Giga New York faces racism allegations: report
Tesla Giga New York employees have alleged that they routinely faced racism while working at the plant. The problems have reportedly persisted since the facility opened years ago.
Gigafactory New York has been the site of controversy recently after the company terminated a number of employees as part of its regular performance review cycle. Among those who were terminated was an employee who identified as part of an active unionization campaign. A complaint with the US National Labor Relations Board has been filed against the EV maker for allegedly striking back at unionization efforts.
As per a recent report from the Investigative Post, a number of Black employees at Giga New York have also come forward about their alleged experiences on the plant. Seven current and former Tesla employees noted that the racist treatment they received ranged from offensive remarks to them being passed over for promotions regularly.
Promotions
Among those who were interviewed by the publication, four claimed that they were passed over for promotions at least 20 times when they tried to get a better post at the plant. The employees noted that as production associates, they worked on numerous manufacturing lines, and at times, they ended up supervising the work of other employees. The employees noted that when they attempted to get a promotion, they were generally unsuccessful.
As an example, two Black employees who were assigned to work on a new battery line reportedly performed very well, to the point where they ended up writing an instruction manual on how the line should work. When they approached Human Resources for a potential reward for their work, the men were reportedly denied. After this, one of the men claimed that he was sent to another area of Giga New York to pack boxes.
Eventually, a job was opened for the line that the men knew how to run, so both applied. One was asked to pass an engineering test and sit through an unusually extended interview before getting denied. The other did not even reach the interview stage. It was only after the line was shut down and restarted that one of the men was given a chance to have a more senior position.
“I don’t think there’s a clear structure. Did they even get my application? Did they look at it? Are they not hiring anymore? They don’t tell you anything,” one of the men said.
Optics
Five employees also alleged that Giga New York managers had asked groups of Black workers not to speak in groups due to optics. “People will, two or three people, gather and have a conversation. The minute the Black men gather, (management says) ‘Oh, you guys can’t group up like that. You know, it looks like a gang,’” an employee claimed.
The employees alleged that this type of treatment seemed specific to Black workers. This was because other workers of color do not experience the same treatment. This reportedly became particularly uncomfortable following the Tops shooting last May. After the tragedy, some Giga New York workers wanted to attend a vigil during work hours. Management allowed the workers to attend the vigil without pay, but when the workers returned, Giga New York management reportedly assumed that the Black workers were talking about forming a union. Tesla reportedly brought in an official to talk to the plant’s leadership about avoiding a union.
Amidst the allegations, the Giga New York employees did highlight that there are some positive changes in the facility. This included the arrival of a new production manager, Adetope Ogunniyi, who used to work at the company’s Nevada facility. The production manager has reportedly made positive changes, and she has done what she can to ensure that qualified Black employees are granted interviews and promotions. Despite her efforts, however, issues are reportedly still present.
“She’s trying to make changes. But, you know, they’re slow in coming,” one of the workers noted.
The full report on the employees’ allegations against Giga New York can be accessed here.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
Lifestyle
NTSB findings on fatal Tesla crash tell a very different story
The NTSB confirmed the driver, not Tesla’s FSD, caused the fatal Texas house crash.
The National Transportation Safety Board released preliminary findings Wednesday confirming that a Tesla driver, not the vehicle’s software, caused a fatal crash in Katy, Texas in June. The driver, 44-year-old Michael Butler, had engaged Full Self-Driving Supervised mode on Rose Hollow Lane, a residential street with a 30 mph speed limit, before manually overriding the system by pressing the accelerator pedal all the way to 100%. Data recovered from the 2025 Tesla Model 3 showed the vehicle was traveling over 70 miles per hour when it struck a home and killed 76-year-old Martha Avila, who was inside. Weather was clear, the road was dry, and it was daylight.
Texas man charged in fatal Tesla crash where he blamed Autopilot
Butler told authorities he had passed out at the wheel. But security camera footage obtained by the NTSB told a different story, and showed the car accelerating through an intersection before leaving the road entirely. Police also found that Butler’s phone had Google searches including the terms “Tesla FSD not aggressive enough 2026” and “Tesla FSD too timid,” raising serious questions about how he was using the system before the crash. Butler has since been charged with manslaughter. The victim’s family has filed a lawsuit against both Butler and Tesla, alleging negligence.
The NTSB findings aligned directly with what Tesla VP of AI Software Ashok Elluswamy had already stated publicly on X in the weeks after the crash, writing that “the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100%.” The data confirmed his account.
Yup. In this case, the driver manually overrode self-driving by pressing the accelerator all the way to 100% of the accel pedal in this residential area. They reached a speed of 73 mph during the crash, and had the accelerator pressed even after the crash.
— Ashok Elluswamy (@aelluswamy) June 22, 2026
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
Tesla has to fix a big problem with its old headlights, NHTSA says
