Following our report that a female engineer working at Tesla filed suit over alleged sexism and inequitable working conditions, the Silicon Valley-based electric carmaker has fired back with an official response.
Tesla’s response to AJ Vandermeyden who filed the lawsuit over claims of “pervasive harrassment”, indicates that the company promoted her into successful engineering roles, despite her having no engineering background, and even after her initial complaints of alleged discrimination. “She sought and was advanced into at least one other new role, evidence of the fact that Tesla is committed to rewarding hard work and talent, regardless of background.” says Tesla in its response.
An independent employment attorney was also hired to perform a full investigation. According to Tesla’s statement, “the report determined that Ms. Vandermeyden’s ‘claims of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation have not been substantiated.”
Teslarati received the following statement from Tesla:
“Tesla is committed to creating a positive workplace environment that is free of discrimination for all our employees. Ms. Vandermeyden joined Tesla in a sales position in 2013, and since then, despite having no formal engineering degree, she has sought and moved into successive engineering roles, beginning with her work in Tesla’s paint shop and eventually another role in General Assembly. Even after she made her complaints of alleged discrimination, she sought and was advanced into at least one other new role, evidence of the fact that Tesla is committed to rewarding hard work and talent, regardless of background. When Ms. Vandermeyden first brought her concerns to us over a year ago, we immediately retained a neutral third party, Anne Hilbert of EMC2Law, to investigate her claims so that, if warranted, we could take appropriate action to address the issues she raised. After an exhaustive review of the facts, the independent investigator determined that Ms. Vandermeyden’s ‘claims of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation have not been substantiated.’ Without this context, the story presented in the original article is misleading.”