News
Tesla gets pressure from NY Retirement Fund over DFEH’s systemic racism allegations
The New York State Common Retirement Fund is currently urging Texas-based electric vehicle maker Tesla to disclose how much the company spends on settling complaints related to sexual harassment and racial discrimination. The Fund’s requests were filed in a shareholder proposal last week after the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) filed its high-profile racism case against Tesla.
As per the resolution outlined in the Fund’s shareholder proposal, it would be best for Tesla to publish an annual report indicating how much it paid in settlements related to harassment and discrimination complaints. The Fund also urged Tesla to provide specifics on the progress it has made in decreasing the time it takes to settle grievances. The EV maker was urged to disclose the number of pending cases it is looking to rectify internally and through litigation as well.
The NY Pension Fund described its proposal in the following section:
“Shareholders request the Board of Directors of Tesla, Inc. to oversee the preparation of an annual public report describing and quantifying the effectiveness and outcomes of Company efforts to prevent harassment and discrimination against protected classes of employees, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment and racial discrimination.
“The report should disclose the Company’s progress on relevant metrics and targets, such as: (a) the total number and aggregate dollar amount of disputes settled by the company related to abuse, harassment or discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, service member status, gender identity, or sexual orientation; (b) the company’s progress toward reducing the average length of time it takes to resolve sexual harassment or discrimination complaints, either through internal processes or through litigation; and (c) the total number of pending harassment or discrimination complaints the company is seeking to resolve through internal processes or through litigation.
“This report should not include the names of accusers or details of their settlements without their consent and should be prepared at a reasonable cost and omit any information that is proprietary, privileged, or violative of contractual obligations.”
These pieces of information, according to the Fund, are material to shareholders. This is especially true since civil rights violations could easily result in notable costs for the EV maker. A good example of this was a $137 million jury verdict against Tesla, which was announced following a lawsuit by a former employee who accused the company of racial discrimination. Tesla is currently challenging the $137 jury verdict, which U.S. District Judge William Orrick has described as “extremely high.”
The NY Pension Fund explained this in the following section:
“Information concerning complaints, legal disputes, and settlements (individually and in the aggregate) are of great interest, and often material to investors. The SEC has shown increased attention to human capital management issues, as demonstrated by its 2020 rulemaking, and Chairman Gensler’s public comments about upcoming additional disclosure proposals and characterization of workforce as a ‘key asset.’ There have been several high-profile derivative suits settled recently, including at Twentieth Century Fox, Wynn Resorts, and Alphabet, alleging boards breached their duties for failing to protect employees from discrimination and harassment, injuring the companies and their shareholders.”
“A report such as the one requested would assist shareholders in assessing whether the Company is improving its workforce management. Civil rights violations within the workplace can result in substantial costs to companies, including fines and penalties, legal costs, costs related to absenteeism, and reduced productivity. A company’s failure to properly manage its workforce can damage corporate goodwill, making it more difficult to retain and recruit employees, and jeopardize relationships with customers and partners.”
The New York State Common Retirement Fund is among the company’s shareholders that have decided to put some pressure on Tesla following the California DFEH’s lawsuit. Other notable shareholders in the EV maker, such as Baron Capital, Vanguard Group Inc., BlackRock Inc., Capital group, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, and Fidelity Investments, have so far been silent about the issue. Tesla has not issued a response to the NY Pension Fund’s proposal either, though the company has outlined its stance against the DFEH’s racism case in a blog post published on its website.
In its blog post, Tesla noted that the DFEH has so far declined to provide the company with specific allegations or factual basis for its lawsuit. The EV maker also noted that over the past five years, the DFEH had been asked on almost 50 occasions to investigate the company, but each one of these was closed with the agency finding no fault in Tesla.
“Over the past five years, the DFEH has been asked on almost 50 occasions by individuals who believe they were discriminated against or harassed to investigate Tesla. On every single occasion, when the DFEH closed an investigation, it did not find misconduct against Tesla. It therefore strains credibility for the agency to now allege, after a three-year investigation, that systematic racial discrimination and harassment somehow existed at Tesla. A narrative spun by the DFEH and a handful of plaintiff firms to generate publicity is not factual proof,” Tesla noted.
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
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford CEO Jim Farley said in a recent podcast interview that Tesla is not who Americans should look at to beat Chinese carmakers.
The comments have sparked quite a bit of outrage from Tesla fans on X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk.
Farley said that Chinese automakers are better examples of how to beat competitors. He said (via the Rapid Response Podcast):
“If you’re an American and you want us to beat the Chinese in the car business, you’re all going to want to pay attention, not necessarily to Tesla. Nothing against Tesla—they’ve been doing great—but they really don’t have an updated vehicle. The best in the business for us, cost-wise and competition-wise, supply chain, manufacturing expertise, and the I.P. in the vehicle, was really BYD. In this next cycle of EV customers in the U.S., they want pickups and utilities and all these different body styles. But they want them at $30,000, not $50,000. Like the first inning, they want them affordably.”
Despite Farley’s synopsis, it is worth mentioning that Tesla had the best-selling passenger vehicle in the world last year, and in China in March, as the Model Y continued its global dominance over other vehicles.
Musk responded to Farley’s comments by stating:
“This is before Supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.”
This is before supervised FSD is approved in China. Limiting factor is production output in Shanghai.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 19, 2026
Interestingly, Farley has been one of the most hellbent CEOs in terms of a legacy automaker standpoint to push the EV effort. It did not go according to plan, as Ford took a $19.5 billion charge and retreated from its EV push in late 2025.
Ford cancels all-electric F-150 Lightning, announces $19.5 billion in charges
Instead, Ford is “doubling down on its affordable” EVs and said it would pivot from its previous plans.
Reaction from Tesla fans was pretty much how you would expect. Many said they have lost a lot of respect for Farley after his comments; others believe he is the last CEO anyone should be taking advice on EVs from.
Nevertheless, Farley’s plans are bold and brash; many consider Tesla the most ideal company to replicate EV efforts from. It will be interesting to see if Ford can rebound from this big adjustment, and hopefully, Farley’s plans to replicate efforts from BYD work out the way he hopes.
Elon Musk
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
NASA awarded SpaceX a $175 million Mars rover contract while the White House proposes cutting the mission.
NASA just signed a $175.7 million contract with SpaceX to launch a Mars rover that the White House is simultaneously trying to defund. The contract, awarded on April 16, 2026, tasks SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy with launching the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Rosalind Franklin rover from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, no earlier than late 2028. It would mark the first time SpaceX has ever sent a payload to Mars.
Under NASA’s Rosalind Franklin Support and Augmentation project, known as ROSA, the agency is providing braking engines for the rover’s descent stage, radioisotope heater units that use decaying plutonium to keep the rover warm on the Martian surface, additional electronics, and a mass spectrometer instrument, as noted by SpaceNews.
Those nuclear heating units are the reason an American rocket was required at all. U.S. export controls on radioisotope technology mean any payload carrying them must launch on a domestic vehicle, which narrowed the field to SpaceX and United Launch Alliance. Falcon Heavy’s pricing made it the practical choice.
SpaceX is quietly becoming the U.S. Military’s only reliable rocket
Falcon Heavy debuted in February 2018 and has 11 launches to its record. The rocket has not flown since October 2024, when it sent NASA’s Europa Clipper toward Jupiter. The three-core design, built from modified Falcon 9 first stages, gives it the lift capacity needed for deep space planetary missions that a single Falcon 9 cannot reach.
The Rosalind Franklin rover has been sitting in storage in Europe for years. It was originally due to launch in 2022 as a joint mission with Russia, but Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that partnership, leaving the rover built but stranded without a launch vehicle or landing hardware. NASA stepped back in through a 2024 agreement with ESA to rescue the mission. The rover is designed to drill up to two meters below the Martian surface in search of evidence of past life, a science objective no previous mission has attempted at that depth.
The contradiction at the center of this story is hard to ignore. The White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget proposal included no funding for ROSA and did not mention the mission at all in the detailed congressional justification document released April 3.
Musk has long argued that reaching Mars is not optional. “We don’t want to be one of those single planet species, we want to be a multi-planet species.” Whether this particular mission survives Washington’s budget fight, the Falcon Heavy contract means SpaceX is now formally on record as the rocket that could get humanity’s next Mars science mission off the ground.
The timing of this contract carries extra weight given that SpaceX filed confidentially with the SEC in early April and is targeting an IPO roadshow in the week of June 8. It would be the largest public offering in history.
Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) is set to hold its Earnings Call for the first quarter of 2026 on Wednesday, and there are a lot of interesting things that are swirling around in terms of speculation from investors.
With the company’s executives, including CEO Elon Musk, answering a handful of questions that investors submit through the Say platform, fans want to know a lot of things about a lot of things.
These five questions come from Retail Investors, who are normal, everyday shareholders:
- When will we have the Optimus v3 reveal? When will Optimus production start, since we ended the Model S and Model X production earlier than mid-year? What’s the expected Optimus production rate exiting this year? What are the initial targeted skills?
- What milestones are you targeting for unsupervised FSD and Robotaxi expansion beyond Austin this year, and how will that drive recurring revenue?
- How will Hardware 3 cars reach Unsupervised Full Self-Driving?
- When do you expect Unsupervised Full Self-Driving to reach customer cars?
- When will Robotaxi expand past its current limited rollout?
Additionally, these are currently the three questions that are slated to be answered by Institutional Firms, which also answer a handful of questions during the call:
- Now that FSD has been approved in the Netherlands and is expected to launch across Europe this summer, can you discuss your Robotaxi strategy for the region?
- What enabled you to finish the AI5 tapeout early and were there any changes to the original vision? Last week, Elon said AI5 will go into Optimus and the Supercomputer, but one month ago said it would go into the Robotaxi. Has AI5 been dropped from the vehicle roadmap?
- Given the recent NHTSA incident filings, can you update us on the Robotaxi safety data? If safety validation remains the primary bottleneck, why not deploy thousands of vehicles to accelerate the removal of the safety driver?
The questions range through every current Tesla project, including FSD expansion and Optimus. However, many of the answers we will get will likely be repetitive answers we’ve heard in the past.
This is especially pertinent when the questions about when Unsupervised FSD will reach customer cars: we know Musk will say that it will happen this year. Is Tesla capable of that? Maybe. But a more transparent answer that is more revealing of a true timeline would be appreciated.
Hardware 3 owners are anxiously awaiting the arrival of FSD v14 Lite, which was promised to them last year for a release sometime this year.
The Earnings Call is set to take place on Wednesday at market close.
Ford CEO Farley says Tesla is not who to look at for EV expertise
SpaceX wins its first MARS contract but it comes with a catch
