News
Tesla sued by female engineer over allegations of “pervasive harassment”
Tesla has been sued by a female engineer who alleges that a climate of “pervasive harassment” has impeded her career advancement. This lawsuit is one more in a series of recent accusations by females against Silicon Valley technology companies.
Update: Tesla issues an official response to the lawsuit
AJ Vandermeyden, 33, whose career at Tesla began in 2013 and continues today, has come forward at a time when nondisclosure statements prohibit most internal accounting of technology sector working conditions. Among Vandermeyden’s claims are a lower salary than males at comparable job assignments, promotions based on gender rather than qualifications, and a cultural climate where a female who raises concerns becomes the object of internal human resources scrutiny.
Her complaints include male co-workers engaging in sexual harassment that goes unaddressed by human resources. Vandermeyden insists she is dedicated to Tesla, which is part of her motivation for coming forward to advocate for fair treatment and reforms. The engineer owns a Tesla Model S and has a reservation for the upcoming Tesla Model 3. “Until somebody stands up, nothing is going to change,” she said in a recent interview to The Guardian about the discrimination lawsuit she filed last year. “I’m an advocate of Tesla. I really do believe they are doing great things. That said, I can’t turn a blind eye if there’s something fundamentally wrong going on.” She acknowledges that she may face serious risks for making the public aware of her lawsuit against Tesla.
AJ Vandermeyden sits in her Tesla outside her family’s home in San Carlos, California. Photograph: Ramin Talaie for the Guardian
Vandermeyden’s lawyer, Therese Lawless, states that many females in similar positions choose not to speak up. “It’s very difficult for women to come forward. They’re concerned that their career is going to be hindered or jeopardized.”
Vendermeyden moved up through the Tesla ranks to a manufacturing engineering position in the general assembly department, where she was paid less than the male engineers whose position and responsibilities she had assumed. This structure of strong relative percentages wages of males to females is typical throughout the Tesla organization, where its highest paid and most prestigious positions are held by males, with only two out of thirty vice-presidents self-describing as female. In Vandermeyden’s case, it was common for her to be the only female in meetings with forty to fifty males.
She outlined how this male-centric Tesla workplace can be hostile to women and dismissive when discussions around barriers to female workplace equality are raised. The response, she says, is often: “‘We’re focused on making cars. We don’t have time to deal with all this other stuff.’”
The complaint, which was filed in autumn, 2016, alleges that, although Vandermeyden designed a solution to compensate for inadequacies in vehicle quality testing which had been overlooked by supervisors and male engineers, she was not recognized for her problem-solving at the time of performance reviews. Instead, her lawsuit claims that Tesla retaliated against her for being a “whistleblower” when she raised concerns about these cars “sold in a defective state.” The result? Males were granted positions above her, according to the complaint, which her lawyers indicate is a pattern in which she and other female engineers were denied promotions even though they were “equally or more qualified” than the males. The lawsuit outlines how Tesla denied her overtime pay, rest breaks, and meal periods when she worked in sales, as well.
She also experienced “unwelcome and pervasive harassment by men on the factory floor including but not limited to inappropriate language, whistling, and cat calls,” the lawsuit says. Objections about sexual harassment, which she raised in 2015, went unheeded. Instead, Vandermeyden was told that, in order to advance her position, she must achieve what she felt was an unattainable factory performance standard, one that was not expected of male engineers. Despite the positive performance evaluations she received, Vandermeyden concluded that her best opportunities for career advancement and overcoming institutional barriers were to transfer to the purchasing department, her current position at Tesla, Inc.
Tesla is not alone in its alleged imbalanced gender culture. Tensions at Uber emerged last week when former engineer Susan Fowler wrote a blog post in which she chronicled a year of work at Uber. In that narrative, she described a chaotic internal culture, a human resources department that made excuses for sexual harassment, frequent episodes where victims were blamed, and a pattern of promotions based on insider preference rather than data-driven performance. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick this week addressed a group of 100+ Uber female engineers to listen to their concerns. Kalanick offered some concessions during his meeting with the female engineers. “So I empathize with you, but I can never fully understand, and I get that. I want to root out the injustice. I want to get at the people who are making this place a bad place. And you have my commitment to make that happen.”
Vandermeyden says, “It’s shocking in this day and age that this is still a fight we have to have.” Her statement acknowledges that any company with more than 30,000 employees will necessarily have a small number of individuals who make claims against the company. Yet, “that does not mean those claims have merit,” the statement adds. “Equal pay is something that is essentially in the back of your mind every single day. You have all these data points showing how you’ve exceeded some of the predecessors and improved on the system. It wears on you.”
Tesla CEO Elon Musk found himself embroiled in another employment controversy earlier this month in which an employee complained of unfair working conditions and discussed how other workers have approached the UAW about possible unionization. Musk used Twitter to wonder aloud whether that complainant was fact or fake news, a Tesla employee or a UAW shill.
Vandermeyden admits she wonders about her future at Tesla. “Half the time when I walk into work, I wonder if my badge is going to work.”
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
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.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
