News
The DFEH’s case against Tesla has been filed, and its allegations are very, very serious
Just a few days ago, Tesla noted in a blog post that the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) is intending to file a lawsuit against the company over alleged systemic racial discrimination and harassment in the its CA facilities. The DFEH’s lawsuit has now been filed, and just as Tesla’s blog post suggested, its accusations are indeed very, very serious.
The lawsuit, which was electronically filed to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda on February 9, 2022, pointed out that Tesla is currently the “largest and highest-profile” electric car company in the world. The suit also highlighted that “Tesla’s Fremont factory is the only nonunion major American automotive plant in the country.” And while a job at Tesla is typically seen as a “golden ticket” for those without a technical background or college degree to secure a job in tech and a path to a career and a living wage, there is segregation and a systemic racism issue prevalent in the company’s CA facilities.
The Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleges that this segregation, as well as the absence of Black and/or African Americans in leadership roles, has resulted in rampant racism being left unchecked for years.
“As early as 2012, Black and/or African American Tesla workers have complained that Tesla production leads, supervisors, and managers constantly use the n-word and other racial slurs to refer to Black workers. They have complained that swastikas, “KKK,” the n-word, and other racist writing are etched onto walls of restrooms, restroom stalls, lunch tables, and even factory machinery. They have complained that Black and/or African American workers are assigned to more physically demanding posts and the lowest-level contract roles, paid less, and more often terminated from employment than other workers.
“They have also complained that Black and/or African American workers are often denied advancement opportunities, and more often and more severely disciplined than non-Black workers. More significantly, these numerous complaints by Black and/or African American workers about racial harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation lodged over a span of almost a decade have been futile. For example, Defendants turned, and continue to turn, a blind eye to years of complaints from Black workers who protest the commonplace use of racial slurs on the assembly line. Tesla was, and continues to be, slow to clean up racist graffiti with swastikas and other hate symbols scrawled in common areas.”
Details of the allegations against Tesla were quite shocking, as they include instances that, for all intents and purposes, should have resulted in a quick termination against the perpetrators. This is something that Tesla has reportedly done in the past, as outlined by the company in its response to a $137 million jury verdict, which came as a result of a lawsuit filed by ex-employee Owen Diaz, who accused the company of racial abuse during his tenure around 2015 through 2016. According to Tesla, two contractors behind Diaz’s racial abuse were promptly terminated, while another was suspended following an internal investigation.
Following are some of the detailed allegations outlined by the DFEH against Tesla.
“Throughout the day, every day, Black and/or African American workers heard Defendants’ workers, leads, supervisors, and managers make racial slurs and comments about Black workers.27 Examples of the racist language include the n-word, “porch monkey,” “monkey toes,” “boy,” “hood rats,” and “horse hair.” Defendants’ workers, including production leads and supervisors, made references to Black and/or African Americans in racist comments and racist jokes such as “N[ ] word out of the hood,” “from the ghetto,” “Tesla [was] hiring lazy coons,” and “go back to Africa.”
“Because the factory was racially segregated, Defendants’ workers referred to the areas where many Black and/or African Americans worked as the ‘porch monkey station.’ Defendants’ workers with tattoos of the Confederate flag made their racially incendiary tattoos visible to intimidate Black and/or African American workers. Racial slurs were also dispensed in Spanish and included ‘mayate’ and ‘negrita.’ Additionally, Defendants’ workers referred to the Tesla factory as the ‘slaveship’ or ‘the plantation,’ where Defendants’ production leads ‘crack[ed] the whip.’ Many Black and/or African American workers understood these terms to be references to how Defendants treated its Black and/or African American workers. One Black worker heard these racial slurs as often as 50-100 times a day.
“These Black and/or African American workers also had racial slurs directed at them. These workers were subjected to Defendants’ production associates, leads, and supervisors directly calling them the n-word throughout the day. One worker heard Defendants’ production associates and leads tell her to ‘Shut the fuck up, N[ ],’ and ‘All blacks look alike.’ Another Black worker reported that at least twice Defendants’ workers mocked him for eating watermelon during lunch. They accused him of being lazy, saying, ‘You’re eating watermelon, that’s why you’re lazy.’ These co-workers also speculated about his genitals and referred to him as ‘Mandingo’ or ‘big black guy.’ Another worker heard Defendants’ production lead and production associate crack racist jokes loud enough for others to hear. When he raised the jokes with them, the production associate slapped his shoulder and said it was just a joke. When another Black worker protested to being called a racial slur and asked Defendants’ production associates, leads, and supervisor to refer to him by his name, they retorted, ‘This N[ ] is crazy’ or ‘This N[ ] is tripping.’ They called him a snitch for complaining.
“Notably, Defendants’ leads, supervisors, and managers were active participants and/or witnesses to these racist comments. Black and/or African American workers reported that Defendants’ leads and supervisors on the production line often said, ‘That stupid N[ ] over there’ or ‘That fucking N[ ], I can’t stand them.’ Regarding a group of Black production associates, Defendants’ supervisor said that “there [was] too many of them in there. They are not Tesla material.” Defendants’ supervisors complained about where Black and/or African American workers were assigned, saying, ‘Monkeys work outside,’ and ‘Monkeys need a coat in cold weather.’ A supervisor pointedly asked one African American worker, ‘Do most Africans have bones through their noses?’ Another African American worker reported that a group of Defendants’ production leads often laughed at her whenever she walked by them. These leads muttered’ N[ ]’ or ‘Shut up, N[ ]’ to her at first. When she started getting awards for her work performance, these leads openly called her these racial slurs.
“On a daily basis, Black and/or African American workers were confronted with racist writing while working at Tesla. They saw racist graffiti – including’ N[ ],’ ‘KKK,’ swastikas, the Confederate flag, a white supremist skull, ‘go back to Africa,’ and ‘mayate’ – written on the restroom walls, restroom stalls, lockers, workplace benches, workstations, lunch tables, and the break room. These slurs were even etched onto Defendants’ machinery. One Black worker observed ‘hang N[ ]’ penned next to a drawing of a noose in the breakroom restroom. This worker also saw ‘all monkeys work outside’ and ‘fuck N[ ]’ on the breakroom walls. These racial slurs and racial comments, apparent to all who walked by, were left up for months, without Defendants bothering to remove them.”
As noted by Tesla in its recent blog post, it would be asking the court to pause the DFEH’s case to ensure that facts and evidence will be heard. The EV maker also noted that despite repeated requests, the DFEH has declined to provide Tesla with specific allegations or the factual basis for its lawsuit. Tesla did note, however, that over the past five years, the DFEH has been asked on almost 50 occasions by individuals who believed that they were discriminated against or harassed to investigate the company. But on every single occasion, the DFEH did not find any misconduct against Tesla.
Teslarati has sent an inquiry to the California DFEH about its case against Tesla, and why it waited years to file a case against the EV maker considering the gravity of the suit’s accusations. The DFEH’s response would likely be covered in a separate article that would be written in the near future.
The DFEH’s lawsuit against Tesla can be viewed below.
DFEH vs Tesla by Simon Alvarez on Scribd
Don’t hesitate to contact us with news tips. Just send a message to simon@teslarati.com to give us a heads up.
Elon Musk
Elon Musk proposes Grok 5 vs world’s best League of Legends team match
Musk’s proposal has received positive reception from professional players and Riot Games alike.
Elon Musk has proposed a high-profile gaming challenge for xAI’s upcoming Grok 5. As per Musk, it would be interesting to see if the large language model could beat the world’ best human League of Legends team with specific constraints.
Musk’s proposal has received positive reception from professional players and Riot Games alike, suggesting that the exciting exhibition match might indeed happen.
Musk outlines restrictions for Grok
In his post on X, Musk detailed constraints to keep the match competitive, including limiting Grok to human-level reaction times, human-speed clicking, and viewing the game only through a camera feed with standard 20/20 vision. The idea quickly circulated across the esports community, drawing commentary from former pros and AI researchers, as noted in a Dexerto report.
Former League pro Eugene “Pobelter” Park expressed enthusiasm, offering to help Musk’s team and noting the unique comparison to past AI-versus-human breakthroughs, such as OpenAI’s Dota 2 bots. AI researcher Oriol Vinyals, who previously reached Grandmaster rank in StarCraft, suggested testing Grok in RTS gameplay as well.
Musk welcomed the idea, even responding positively to Vinyals’ comment that it would be nice to see Optimus operate the mouse and keyboard.
Pros debate Grok’s chances, T1 and Riot show interest
Reactions weren’t universally optimistic. Former professional mid-laner Joedat “Voyboy” Esfahani argued that even with Grok’s rapid learning capabilities, League of Legends requires deep synergy, game-state interpretation, and team coordination that may be difficult for AI to master at top competitive levels. Yiliang “Doublelift” Peng was similarly skeptical, publicly stating he doubted Grok could beat T1, or even himself, and jokingly promised to shave his head if Grok managed to win.
T1, however, embraced the proposal, responding with a GIF of Faker and the message “We are ready,” signaling their willingness to participate. Riot Games itself also reacted, with co-founder Marc Merrill replying to Musk with “let’s discuss.” Needless to say, it appears that Riot Games in onboard with the idea.
Though no match has been confirmed, interest from players, teams, and Riot suggests the concept could materialize into a landmark AI-versus-human matchup, potentially becoming one of the most viewed League of Legends events in history. The fact that Grok 5 will be constrained to human limits would definitely add an interesting dimension to the matchup, as it could truly demonstrate how human-like the large language model could be like in real-time scenarios.
Tesla has passed a key milestone, and it was one that CEO Elon Musk initially mentioned more than nine years ago when he published Master Plan, Part Deux.
As per Tesla China in a post on its official Weibo account, the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated over 10 billion kilometers of real-world driving experience.
Tesla China’s subtle, but huge announcement
In its Weibo post, Tesla China announced that the company’s Autopilot system has accumulated 10 billion kilometers of driving experience. “In this respect, Tesla vehicles equipped with Autopilot technology can be considered to have the world’s most experienced and seasoned driver.”
Tesla AI’s handle on Weibo also highlighted a key advantage of the company’s self-driving system. “It will never drive under the influence of alcohol, be distracted, or be fatigued,” the team wrote. “We believe that advancements in Autopilot technology will save more lives.”
Tesla China did not clarify exactly what it meant by “Autopilot” in its Weibo post, though the company’s intense focus on FSD over the past years suggests that the term includes miles that were driven by FSD (Beta) and Full Self-Driving (Supervised). Either way, 10 billion cumulative miles of real-world data is something that few, if any, competitors could compete with.
Advertisement
–>
Elon Musk’s 10-billion-km estimate, way back in 2016
When Elon Musk published Master Plan Part Deux, he outlined his vision for the company’s autonomous driving system. At the time, Autopilot was still very new, though Musk was already envisioning how the system could get regulatory approval worldwide. He estimated that worldwide regulatory approval will probably require around 10 billion miles of real-world driving data, which was an impossible-sounding amount at the time.
“Even once the software is highly refined and far better than the average human driver, there will still be a significant time gap, varying widely by jurisdiction, before true self-driving is approved by regulators. We expect that worldwide regulatory approval will require something on the order of 6 billion miles (10 billion km). Current fleet learning is happening at just over 3 million miles (5 million km) per day,” Musk wrote.
It’s quite interesting but Tesla is indeed getting regulatory approval for FSD (Supervised) at a steady pace today, at a time when 10 billion miles of data has been achieved. The system has been active in the United States and has since been rolled out to other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, China, and, more recently, South Korea. Expectations are high that Tesla could secure FSD approval in Europe sometime next year as well.
News
Elon Musk’s Boring Company reveals Prufrock TBM’s most disruptive feature
As it turns out, the tunneling startup, similar to other Elon Musk-backed ventures, is also dead serious about pursuing reusability.
The Boring Company has quietly revealed one of its tunnel boring machines’ (TBMs) most underrated feature. As it turns out, the tunneling startup, similar to other Elon Musk-backed ventures, is also dead serious about pursuing reusability.
Prufrock 5 leaves the factory
The Boring Company is arguably the quietest venture currently backed by Elon Musk, inspiring far fewer headlines than his other, more high-profile companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI. Still, the Boring Company’s mission is ambitious, as it is a company designed to solve the problem of congestion in cities.
To accomplish this, the Boring Company would need to develop tunnel boring machines that could dig incredibly quickly. To this end, the startup has designed Prufrock, an all-electric TBM that’s designed to eventually be fast enough as an everyday garden snail. Among TBMs, such a speed would be revolutionary.
The startup has taken a step towards this recently, when The Boring Company posted a photo of Prufrock-5 coming out of its Bastrop, Texas facility. “On a rainy day in Bastrop, Prufrock-5 has left the factory. Will begin tunneling by December 1. Hoping for a step function increase in speed,” the Boring Company wrote.
Prufrock’s quiet disruption
Interestingly enough, the Boring Company also mentioned a key feature of its Prufrock machines that makes them significantly more sustainable and reusable than conventional TBMs. As per a user on X, standard tunnel boring machines are often left underground at the conclusion of a project because retrieving them is usually more expensive and impractical than abandoning them in the location.
As per the Boring Company, however, this is not the case for its Prufrock machines, as they are retrieved, upgraded, and deployed again with improvements. “All Prufrocks are reused, usually with upgrades between launches. Prufrock-1 has now dug six tunnels,” the Boring Company wrote in its reply on X.
The Boring Company’s reply is quite exciting as it suggests that the TBMs from the tunneling startup could eventually be as reusable as SpaceX’s boosters. This is on brand for an Elon Musk-backed venture, of course, though the Boring Company’s disruption is a bit more underground.
Tesla is being accused of infringing robotics patents by a company called Perrone Robotics, which is based out of Charlottesville, Virginia.
The suit was filed in Alexandria, Virginia, and accuses Tesla of knowingly infringing upon five patents related to robotics systems for self-driving vehicles.
The company said its founder, Paul Perrone, developed general-purpose robotics operating systems for individual robots and automated devices.
Perrone Robotics claims that all Tesla vehicles utilizing the company’s Autopilot suite within the last six years infringe the five patents, according to a report from Reuters.
Tesla’s new Safety Report shows Autopilot is nine times safer than humans
One patent was something the company attempted to sell to Tesla back in 2017. The five patents cover a “General Purpose Operating System for Robotics,” otherwise known as GPROS.
The GPROS suite includes extensions for autonomous vehicle controls, path planning, and sensor fusion. One key patent, U.S. 10,331,136, was explicitly offered to Tesla by Perrone back in 2017, but the company rejected it.
The suit aims to halt any further infringements and seeks unspecified damages.
This is far from the first suit Tesla has been involved in, including one from his year with Perceptive Automata LLC, which accused Tesla of infringing on AI models to interpret pedestrian/cyclist intent via cameras without licensing. Tesla appeared in court in August, but its motion to dismiss was partially denied earlier this month.
Tesla also settled a suit with Arsus LLC, which accused Autopilot’s electronic stability features of infringing on rollover prevention tech. Tesla won via an inter partes review in September.
Most of these cases involve non-practicing entities or startups asserting broad autonomous vehicle patents against Tesla’s rapid iteration.
Tesla typically counters with those inter partes reviews, claiming invalidity. Tesla has successfully defended about 70 percent of the autonomous vehicle lawsuits it has been involved in since 2020, but settlements are common to avoid discovery costs.
The case is Perrone Robotics Inc v Tesla Inc, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, No. 25-02156. Tesla has not yet listed an attorney for the case, according to the report.
Elon Musk proposes Grok 5 vs world’s best League of Legends team match
Elon Musk’s Boring Company reveals Prufrock TBM’s most disruptive feature
