News
Tesla’s efforts to dismiss CA DCR’s racial discrimination suit rejected in tentative ruling
On Tuesday, a California judge issued a tentative ruling denying Tesla’s motion to dismiss a racial discrimination suit filed by the state’s Department of Civil Rights (DCR), which alleged that Black workers are being subjected to a hostile work environment in the electric vehicle maker’s Fremont Factory.
Tesla’s legal team had argued that the DCR’s case should be dismissed because the agency did not follow proper protocol in its alleged investigations. The DCR had accused Tesla of operating a racially segregated workplace, where Black employees were subjected to verbal harassment and unequal pay, among others.
That being said, Tesla may still find some footing in its efforts to challenge the DCR’s racial discrimination suit. Citing a source familiar with the matter, TechCrunch noted that California Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo had imposed a one-year statute of limitation on the agency. This, according to the publication’s source, sets a rather high bar for the DCR to show and prove that there is indeed a pervading culture of racism at the Fremont plant.
It should be noted that back in June, Judge Grillo informed Tesla that it could pursue its claims against the DCR. However, he also noted that staying the lawsuit would be inappropriate.
Proving the DCR’s allegations against Tesla could be tricky, especially as the EV maker, in a blog post earlier this year, claimed that the DCR had investigated the company on almost 50 occasions over the years, and each time, no misconduct was found against 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.
The DCR’s lawsuit is not the only racial discrimination case that has been filed against Tesla. Back in 2017, ex-factory worker Marcus Vaughn filed a class-action suit against the company because he was allegedly called the “n-word” by managers and his colleagues. Former operator Owen Diaz also sued the company for alleged racial discrimination, and his case made headlines after the jury gave Tesla a $137 million penalty. The amount has since been reduced to $15 million, an amount that Diaz rejected.
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
News
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
To address the issue, IF Metall is encouraging Tesla strikers to return the refunded tax amounts to the union.
A tax correction is set to return two years of income tax payments to Tesla strikers in Sweden, after authorities determined that conflict compensation during a labor dispute should not have been taxed.
The issue is caused by a decision by IF Metall to treat strike compensation for Tesla workers as taxable income during the ongoing labor dispute with Tesla Sweden. That approach has now been reversed following guidance from the Swedish Tax Agency.
Strike compensation is typically tax-free under Sweden’s Income Tax Act, as noted in a report from Dagens Arbete (DA). However, two years ago, IF Metall’s board decided to classify payments to Tesla strikers as taxable.
“We did it to secure SGI, unemployment insurance and public pension. Those were the risks we saw when the strike had already dragged on,” Kent Bursjöö, financial manager at IF Metall, stated.
According to Bursjöö, the union wanted to ensure that members continued to register earned income with the tax agency, protecting benefits tied to income history. At the end of January, however, the Swedish Tax Agency informed the union that compensation during a labor dispute must be tax-free.
“Of course, we knew that it could be tax-free. But we clearly didn’t know that it couldn’t be taxable,” Bursjöö said.
Following discussions with auditors and tax authorities, IF Metall began correcting the payments. As a result, two years of paid income tax will now be credited back to the affected strikers’ tax accounts. The union will also recover previously paid employer contributions.
However, the correction creates secondary effects. Since the payments will now be treated as tax-free, pension contributions tied to those earnings will be withdrawn, potentially affecting state pension accrual and income-based benefits such as parental or sickness benefits.
To address this, IF Metall is encouraging members to return the refunded tax amounts to the union. In exchange, the union plans to pay 18.5% into occupational pensions on their behalf. “Otherwise, it will be a form of overcompensation when they get the tax paid back,” Bursjöö said.
That being said, the IF Metall officer acknowledged that the union’s legal ability to reclaim the funds from its improperly paid Tesla Sweden strikers is limited. “The legal possibilities are probably limited, from what we can see. But we assume that most people see the value of securing their pension,” Bursjöö said.
News
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla falsely promoted the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla has filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in an effort to overturn a prior ruling that found the automaker engaged in false advertising related to its driver-assistance systems.
The complaint seeks to remove the agency’s conclusion that Tesla misled customers about the capabilities of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving.
Tesla’s legal action follows a decision by California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which concluded that Tesla’s earlier marketing of “Autopilot” and “Full Self-Driving” violated state law, as noted in a CNBC report.
While the DMV opted not to suspend Tesla’s license after determining the company had updated its marketing language for its advanced driver-assistance systems, Tesla is asking the court to go further and reverse the agency’s conclusion.
In its Feb. 13 complaint, Tesla’s attorneys argued that the DMV “wrongfully and baselessly” labeled the company a “false advertiser” for its Autopilot and FSD systems. The filing argued that regulators failed to demonstrate that consumers were actually misled about the capabilities of Tesla’s systems.
According to Tesla’s complaint, the DMV “never proved consumers in the state had been confused about whether its cars were safe to drive without a human at the wheel.”
Tesla’s legal team further stated: “It was impossible to buy a Tesla equipped with either Autopilot or Full Self-Driving Capability, or to use any of their associated features, without seeing clear and repeated statements that they do not make the vehicle autonomous.”
Tesla now promotes its driver-assistance system as “Full Self-Driving (Supervised),” a name that overemphasizes the need for active driver attention.
Tesla’s autonomous driving program is a pivotal part of the company’s future, with CEO Elon Musk stating that self-driving technology will truly be the solution that will push Tesla into its full potential. The company is currently operating a Robotaxi pilot in Austin and the Bay Area, and the company recently announced that it has produced the first Cybercab from Giga Texas’ production line.
News
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, coding shows
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
Tesla is making two big upgrades to the Model 3, one of which is widely requested by owners and fans, and another that it has already started to make on some trim levels of other models within the lineup.
The changes appear to be taking effect in the European and Chinese markets, but these are expected to come to the United States based on what Tesla has done with the Model Y.
According to coding found in the European and Chinese configurators, Tesla is planning to make two big upgrades: Black Headliner offerings and a new 16-inch QHD display, similar to that on the Model Y Performance.
These changes in the coding were spotted by X user BERKANT, who shared the findings on the social media platform this morning:
🚨 Model 3 changes spotted in Tesla backend
• New interior code: IN3PB (Interior 3 Premium Black)
• Linked to Alcantara-style black headliner
• Mapped to 2026 Model 3 Performance and Premium VINs• EPC now shows: “Display_16_QHD”
• Multiple 2026 builds marked with… pic.twitter.com/OkDM5EdbTu— BERKANT (@Tesla_NL_TR) February 23, 2026
It appears these new upgrades will roll out with the Model 3 Performance and Tesla’s Premium trim levels of the all-electric sedan.
The changes are welcome. Tesla fans have been requesting that its Model 3 and Model Y offerings receive a black headliner, as even with the black interior options, the headliner is grey.
Tesla recently upgraded Model Y vehicles to this black headliner option, even in the United States, so it seems as if the Model 3 will get the same treatment as it appears to be getting in the Eastern hemisphere.
Tesla has been basically accentuating the Model 3 and Model Y with small upgrades that owners have been wanting, and it has been a focal point of the company’s future plans as it phases out other vehicles like the Model S and Model X.
Additionally, Tesla offered an excellent 0.99% APR last week on the Model 3, hoping to push more units out the door to support a strong Q1 delivery figure at the beginning of April.
Tesla Sweden strikers see tax issues over IF Metall union error
Tesla sues California DMV over Autopilot and FSD advertising ruling
