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 has spent years trying to engineer its way out of the automotive paint shop, one of the most expensive, space-consuming, and environmentally costly steps in vehicle manufacturing. With the Cybercab, Tesla confirmed on X this week that a new reaction injection molding process will embed color directly into the panel itself during production.
“Our new reaction injection molding (RIM) process shrinks Cybercab paint cycles from hours to minutes. This cuts those parts’ manufacturing and supply chain emissions by 35% and eliminating 100% of paint volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted in traditional paint methods.” noted Tesla.
While the RIM process isn’t necessarily new and has existed since the 1960s, what makes Tesla’s application notable is how it is being used specifically for exterior body panels that traditionally required a separate paint process after forming.
Tesla’s RIM approach integrates the color directly into the panel material during the molding process itself. The pigment is part of the polymer mix injected into the mold, meaning the panel comes out of the mold already colored, with no separate paint application required. The clear coat or protective layer can be applied at the mold stage or through a much faster post-process than traditional multi-stage painting. Tesla claims this compresses what was a multi-hour paint cycle into minutes per panel.
Tesla’s obsession with killing the paint shop is one of the most consistent threads running through the company’s manufacturing philosophy going back years. As far back as 2018, Musk was trimming paint color options to simplify production, tweeting at the time: “Moving 2 of 7 Tesla colors off menu on Wednesday to simplify manufacturing.” Two years later, in a 2020 Automotive News interview, Musk laid out his broader vision, saying he believed Tesla factories could one day be 1,000 times more efficient than conventional plants, and pointing to the paint shop as one of the biggest sources of waste, cost, and complexity. The Cybertruck was the most extreme expression of that thinking. Tesla chose an unpainted stainless steel exterior partly because it would eliminate the need for a $200 million paint facility at Gigafactory Texas. The stainless approach proved harder and more expensive than anticipated, but the underlying ambition never changed. The Cybercab is what happens when that same ambition meets a manufacturing process that delivers on it.
Lifestyle
Tesla app update makes Robotaxi ownership make a lot more sense
Tesla’s app now shows a live indicator when your car is actively driving itself.
A recent Tesla app update, released last week (4.58.5), gives visibility on whether a vehicle is navigating in its semi-autonomous mode or being drive by a human driver. The updated app now displays a live “Self-Driving” indicator in bright blue text directly beneath the vehicle’s speed readout whenever Full Self-Driving is actively engaged, along with the signature glowing blue navigation path that FSD users see on the main touchscreen. It is a small visual update with meaningful implications for how Tesla owners monitor their vehicles remotely.
The feature was first spotted in the wild by X user Jordan Camina, who shared video of a Hardware 3 Model S displaying the new animation through the app while driving. That detail is significant because it confirms the update is not limited to newer HW4 vehicles. It works across hardware generations, and Tesla confirmed it will eventually support all vehicles regardless of chip platform once both the app and vehicle software are updated. The vehicle side requires software version 2026.20.6.1, which has reached nearly 40% of the fleet so far, as monitored by NotaTeslaApp.
The feature makes the most practical sense when viewed through the lens of Tesla’s expanding robotaxi operation. In a robotaxi context, the owner of a vehicle generating ride revenue has a direct financial and safety interest in knowing whether their car is operating under autonomous control at any given moment. The app’s new FSD indicator gives fleet owners exactly that visibility, the same way a logistics company monitors whether a delivery driver is following the planned route. It also carries implications for Tesla’s insurance model. Tesla’s own insurance product prices premiums in part based on FSD engagement rates, and real-time visibility into when FSD is active creates a feedback loop that could eventually tie directly into policy pricing. For individual owners who have opted their personal vehicles into the robotaxi network, the update effectively turns the Tesla app into a fleet management dashboard, one that tells you whether your car is earning money, whether it is driving itself to do it, and whether everything is operating the way it should from wherever you happen to be.
Tesla expands Robotaxi to Florida, marking its third state for autonomy
As Teslarati has reported, Tesla launched unsupervised robotaxi rides in Miami this summer, a milestone that makes a remote FSD status indicator significantly more practical than a cosmetic feature. When a vehicle is operating as a robotaxi without a driver present, the owner or fleet operator needs a reliable way to confirm autonomy is engaged. The app now provides exactly that.
As noted by NotATeslaApp, The update also arrived alongside a hint buried in the same app version that Tesla plans to use the cabin camera to verify driver identity before FSD can be activated. Pairing identity verification with a live autonomy status indicator points toward the infrastructure Tesla is building for a fleet of driverless vehicles that owners can monitor the way you would track a package delivery.
Elon Musk
California snubs Tesla in its newly passed EV incentive that favors Rivian and Lucid
California passed a $135 million EV incentive that rewards Rivian and Lucid while sidelining Tesla
California just drew a line in the EV incentive sand to put Tesla on the wrong side of it. The state recently passed a $135 million program offering first-time electric vehicle buyers a direct incentive with no application required, but the rules were written in a way that leaves Tesla at a structural disadvantage compared to Rivian and Lucid.
The program caps eligible vehicles at $50,000 for new EVs and $25,000 for used ones. That pricing threshold rules out a significant portion of Tesla’s lineup, though some lower-priced Model 3 and Model Y configurations would still qualify. California-based automakers are exempt from the price cap entirely, regardless of what their vehicles cost. Rivian, headquartered in Irvine, and Lucid, based in the San Francisco Bay Area, both benefit from that exemption. Rivian’s R2 starts at roughly $45,000 but has versions above the cap. Lucid’s Air and Gravity start at $70,990 and $79,990 respectively, well above any threshold a non-California company would face.
California hits Tesla Cybercab and Robotaxi driverless cars with new law
Tesla built its reputation and a significant portion of its early market share in California, where EV adoption has consistently led the nation. The company operates its original factory in Fremont, California, and the state was home to Tesla’s headquarters for most of its existence. That changed in 2021 when Tesla moved its corporate headquarters to Austin, Texas. Since then, the relationship between the company and California Governor Gavin Newsom has been openly adversarial, with Musk and Newsom trading public criticism on multiple occasions.
California’s EV incentive landscape has shifted repeatedly in recent years, and Tesla has previously lost eligibility for state-level programs as its vehicles exceeded income-adjusted price thresholds. The federal $7,500 EV tax credit, which Tesla models have qualified for and lost depending on policy cycles, is no longer available after it expired without renewal, making state-level programs more meaningful to buyers than they have been in years.
The practical impact for buyers is more nuanced than the headline suggests. California residents purchasing a Tesla under $50,000 for the first time can still access the incentive. But the exemption written for California-based manufacturers is a structural advantage that rewards where a company plants its headquarters flag rather than where it builds its products, and Tesla moved that flag to Texas.
The secret behind Tesla’s Cybercab Gold goes well beyond just the color
Tesla app update makes Robotaxi ownership make a lot more sense
