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.
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
