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.”
Tesla shared a striking video showcasing the decommissioning of the original Model S and Model X assembly line at its Fremont Factory in Northern California. Completed in just 46 days, the teardown involved heavy machinery dismantling concrete pits, removing robotic arms and conveyors, and clearing the space for new production.
The post, captioned “End of an era,” captured both the end of a historic chapter and Tesla’s aggressive pivot toward its next major initiative, Optimus.
End of an era: Decommissioning the original Model S & X assembly line in just 46 days pic.twitter.com/kGEdfhl62h
— Tesla Manufacturing (@gigafactories) July 10, 2026
The decision to retire the Model S and Model X originated during Tesla’s Q4 2025 Earnings Call in late January 2026. CEO Elon Musk announced that production of the company’s flagship sedan and SUV would wind down by the end of Q2 2026, describing it as bringing the programs to an “honorable discharge.”
Custom orders ceased around early April 2026, with the final vehicles rolling off the line in early May. A special signature delivery ceremony on May 20 marked the emotional close for these vehicles, which had defined Tesla’s early success and luxury EV segment since the Model S launch in 2012.
The primary reason for tearing down the lines was to repurpose the valuable factory floor space for high-volume production of Tesla’s Optimus humanoid robot. Musk had indicated on Earnings Calls that the Fremont S/X line would be replaced by a dedicated Optimus manufacturing line targeting a capacity of one million units per year.
This move aligns with Tesla’s broader strategic shift from traditional vehicle manufacturing toward robotics and artificial intelligence, leveraging the company’s expertise in autonomy, AI training, and high-volume production.
Optimus, Tesla’s general-purpose humanoid robot, is designed to perform repetitive or dangerous tasks in factories, warehouses, and eventually homes. Powered by Tesla’s AI and Neural Networks, it aims to be a versatile, affordable platform. Production of Optimus Gen 3 is already underway in limited form at Fremont, with full-scale output on the converted line expected to begin in late July or August.
Tesla is targeting rapid scaling, with internal ambitions pointing toward tens or even hundreds of thousands of units annually by the end of 2026.
Longer-term, Tesla is constructing a much larger second-generation Optimus facility at Giga Texas, with potential capacity reaching millions of units per year. The company views Optimus as a transformative product that could eventually surpass its automotive business in scale and value, enabling widespread deployment of useful robots across industries. CEO Elon Musk has even predicted it would be the most popular product of all-time.
As one era closes at Fremont, another is rapidly taking shape.
Elon Musk posted a candid admission on his social media platform X on June 9, declaring that he had been “clearly wrong” about Anthropic. The statement marked a notable reversal from his earlier skepticism toward the AI company.
In September, Musk had written, “Winning was never in the set of possible outcomes for Anthropic,” reflecting his view at the time that the startup had lacked the foundation or even the trajectory to succeed in what is an incredibly intense race for advanced artificial intelligence.
Musk’s latest post came amid discussion of Anthropic’s reliance on external compute resources. He praised the company’s progress, stating that Anthropic is “obviously currently the leader in AI” and that “no company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable,” with expectations of a strong follow-up in Mythos 2.
The tone shifted dramatically from dismissal to acknowledgement of superior performance.
I was clearly wrong about Anthropic. They are obviously currently the leader in AI. No company has released a model as good as Mythos/Fable and they will undoubtedly have Mythos 2 ready soon.
And I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor.…
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 9, 2026
The context of Musk’s comments added significance. Anthropic has been operating under a recent compute deal with SpaceXAI, Musk’s AI infrastructure-focused venture. The pair entered a short-term GPU lease agreement initiated in May, providing Anthropic access to critical computing power for training and deploying its frontier models.
SpaceXAI signs agreement with Anthropic for massive AI supercomputer access
Some observers had speculated that Musk could leverage this dependency to disadvantage a rival. Musk directly addressed the possibility, writing, “I would never cut them off in a way that hurt them badly, even as a competitor. That’s not my style.”
To support his commitment to ethical competition, Musk referenced concrete examples from his other companies. Tesla famously open-sourced its entire portfolio of electric vehicle patents in 2014. The move was designed to accelerate the global adoption of sustainable transportation technology rather than protect proprietary advantages.
Tesla also made its Supercharger network available to competing electric vehicle manufacturers, transforming what could have remained an exclusive charging ecosystem into a shared infrastructure that benefits the broader industry and reduces barriers for EV adoption.
Musk further pointed to SpaceX’s practices, noting that the company launches satellites for competing commercial systems “with no increase in price or use of unfair terms.” He extended the principle to his social platform, observing that “even my worst enemies attack me on this platform,” underscoring preference for open discourse over retaliation.
These examples have illustrated Musk’s long-standing philosophy that long-term technological progress is best served by open competition and infrastructure sharing rather than leveraging market power to stifle rivals. In the fast-evolving AI sector, where compute resources and model capabilities determine leadership, Musk’s stance suggests a willingness to compete on innovation and performance alone.
Musk’s admission arrives as SpaceXAI itself advances its own frontier models while maintaining business relationships across the ecosystem. By publicly correcting his earlier assessment and reaffirming principles of fair play, Musk highlights a model of competition that prioritizes advancement of the field over short-term tactical advantages.
A Tesla analyst believes the company’s Full Self-Driving suite is close to an “inflection point,” where people will finally realize that it is more than what it appears, similar to how many view the iPhone.
Pierre Ferragu, an analyst who has covered Tesla for many years at New Street Research, says the Full Self-Driving suite is one piece of evidence supporting the view that a Tesla is more than a car. He compared it to the iPhone and noted that the high price tag seemed like a lot for a phone early on. Then people realized the iPhone was more than just something you make calls with. It made their lives simpler.
🚨 Analyst @p_ferragu says Tesla Full Self-Driving is at an “inflection point” in a recent commentary:
“A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone. As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive. Give us 2 more quarters to see… pic.twitter.com/tm6xFrjVPV
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 10, 2026
Suddenly, that price tag was justified.
Tesla offers several models under the average transaction price for a new vehicle, which was above $49,000, according to Kelley Blue Book. However, that does not take into account that many people can still not afford a $35,000 vehicle. Ferragu offers his thoughts:
“Remember when the addressable market of the iPhone was 10 million units? Then people realized how good it was, and now, nearly 250m are sold every year.
A similar evolution for Tesla is still on the table. A Tesla is not a car, the same way an iPhone was not a phone.
A model 3 at $35k + $100 per month is too expensive for most, but only as a car, the same way a $600 iPhone was too expensive for most, until most realized it was much more than a phone.
As a tool that gets you to work peacefully every morning, it is not expensive.”
This point is valid, especially considering the iPhone’s impact on the cell phone market. There are still a handful of players, but most people you know have an iPhone. The iPhone ties into Apple’s other ecosystem of products.
This is how Tesla plans to infiltrate the automotive market, and once the company offers a fully autonomous suite, or something that can allow for unsupervised self-driving, more and more people will flock to Tesla.
Ferragu believes Tesla needs two additional quarters of development before things will truly change. He didn’t elaborate on what will happen in two quarters, but he said it will give us all time to “see where this is heading.”
It is really quite interesting to see people’s reactions when they find out what a Tesla is capable of. Full Self-Driving is a great tool for taking stress out of travel; I use it daily, and it has made it really difficult to consider taking any other car on a drive of practically any length.
To me, it is really hard to believe that people will not at least seriously consider a Tesla as their next car if they experience Full Self-Driving. This is a major point for those who argue that Tesla should advertise in some way.
Tesla shows rapid teardown of Model S and X lines, paving the way for Optimus at Fremont
Elon Musk admits he was ‘clearly wrong’ about Anthropic
