Former Tesla Safety Director Sues Over Termination

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

An increasingly murky legal battle has pitted one-time Tesla safety director Carlos Ramirez against his former employer.

In his lawsuit against the automaker, Ramirez claims he was terminated after exposing improper logging of workplace injuries, lending weight to a report published by Reveal earlier this year. Tesla says Ramirez’s firing had nothing to do with his safety findings and everything to do with his behavior towards fellow employees.

The lawsuit, exposed by Jalopnik, claims that Ramirez, who took on the role of Director of Environmental, Health, Safety, and Sustainability at Tesla after serving a similar function at Tesla subsidiary SolarCity, was terminated after presenting the results of a safety audit of the automaker’s Fremont, California assembly plant.

Ramirez had been asked to create a safety program for the plant. In the suit, he says trouble arose after an audit of the Tesla Incident Reporting System showed “numerous instances of lack of treatment of Tesla employees that suffered workplace injuries, recordkeeping violations, and improper classification of workplace injuries to avoid treating and reporting workplace injuries.”

In addition to the alleged injury reporting discrepancies, Ramirez claims the Fremont plant was home to unsafe working conditions, which included oil spills and chemical fires.

The former safety director says, after revealing his findings to Tesla at a May 7, 2017 meeting, the automaker “made allegedly untrue statements to the state and the public based on incorrect OSHA 300 records and incident rate numbers.”

Tesla terminated Ramirez the following month. The suit alleges, “Among other adverse employment actions, Tesla wrongfully accused Plaintiff of bullying, brought unfounded complaints against him, and terminated Plaintiff’s employment on June 8, 2017.”

In a response to Jalopnik, a Tesla spokesperson said Ramirez, who was with the company for “less than four months,” was brought on to beef up the company’s safety program, and that terminating him for fulfilling this task “would make no sense.”

Instead, Tesla says the termination came about after an investigation into the claimant’s behavior.

“Mr. Ramirez was terminated because after an extensive investigation, it was clear that he had engaged over and over again in harassing workplace behavior and used extremely inappropriate language that violated any reasonable standard,” the Tesla spokesperson said. “We conducted our investigation after we received an onslaught of complaints about Mr. Ramirez’s behavior, with nearly a dozen different employees stating that he engaged in clear bullying, sought to intimidate his colleagues, and repeatedly made inappropriate comments about women.”

The company then detailed specific complaints it says were lodged against Ramirez. The claimant’s allegations of possible labor law violations went unmentioned in the statement.

[Image: Tesla]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 12 comments
  • Master Baiter Master Baiter on Jun 12, 2018

    "...and repeatedly made inappropriate comments about women.” Well, that tears it. He violated the 0th commandment. He should drop his lawsuit now. . .

  • Turf3 Turf3 on Jun 12, 2018

    Here's my theory: The safety director discovers a bunch of stuff not being done right. Being a crusty old manufacturing guy not a Silicon Valley nu-male, he starts leaning on people to clean up their act, using phrases like "you blankety-blank, you need to get this blank cleaned up right blank now or your blank is out of here!" When, instead of backing him up, upper management instructs him to whitewash the safety risks and violations he is trying to get fixed, he responds with statements like "you blankety-blanks are just trying to cover this blank up. Just you wait till some poor blank gets his head crushed or burned to a crisp, and then the blank is really gonna hit the blanking fan! If you blankety-blanks think I'm gonna sit her and be your blanking fall guy, you got another blanking think coming!" Whereupon suddenly they discover that he's being abusive and using improper language. How much you want to bet it went down pretty close to what I'm describing? Once again the Silicon Valley arrogance comes through. "We don't need to actually learn anything about how to make automobiles in a mass production factory; we're from the Bay Area, about which the universe revolves, so we already know everything there is to know!"

  • Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
  • Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
  • Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.
  • Lynn Joiner Lynn JoinerJust put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
  • Lynn Joiner Just put 2,000 miles on a Chevy Malibu rental from Budget, touring around AZ, UT, CO for a month. Ran fine, no problems at all, little 1.7L 4-cylinder just sipped fuel, and the trunk held our large suitcases easily. Yeah, I hated looking up at all the huge FWD trucks blowing by, but the Malibu easily kept up on the 80 mph Interstate in Utah. I expect a new one would be about a third the cost of the big guys. It won't tow your horse trailer, but it'll get you to the store. Why kill it?
Next