HR under scrutiny as ex-Tesla worker alleges rape, retaliation
A former Tesla worker in Nevada says she was raped by a supervisor, then fired days after disclosing her pregnancy and seeking time off.
Filed on Nov. 26, 2025, in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, the lawsuit centers on allegations about working conditions at Tesla’s Gigafactory in Sparks and touches directly on supervisor oversight, harassment prevention and how employers respond to pregnancy-related requests for leave and accommodation.
According to the filing, Vanessa Villanueva began working as a Production Associate at the Gigafactory on or about July 8, 2024. On or about July 23, 2024, she was transferred to work under supervisor Dimitrios Fountas, where team lead Octavio Garcia allegedly had direct supervisory authority over her daily work assignments, breaks and working conditions.
Beginning in or around August 2024 and continuing through January 2025, the lawsuit says, Garcia subjected her to severe and pervasive sexual harassment. The document describes sexually explicit comments about her in a bikini at a work party, an offer of money for sex, providing alcohol to her during shifts and causing her to become intoxicated, and repeatedly groping her breasts and buttocks on the production line. It also alleges that Garcia sent sexually explicit text messages using pet names such as “babygirl” and “chula” and engaged in quid pro quo harassment by offering extra breaks, early leave from work and favorable treatment in exchange for nude photographs.
In or around mid-November 2024, the filing alleges, Garcia raped Villanueva in an upstairs warehouse area without security cameras while she was intoxicated from alcohol he had provided at work. The lawsuit states that this harassment occurred openly on the production floor and claims Tesla failed to adequately supervise its workplace, failed to monitor for inappropriate supervisor-subordinate relationships and failed to prevent the alleged sexual harassment and assault by Garcia, whom Tesla had placed in a supervisory position with authority over her.
In or around early January 2025, Villanueva discovered she was pregnant and began experiencing pregnancy-related medical symptoms requiring medical attention and time off from work, according to the filing. Between Jan. 15, 2025 and Jan. 26, 2025, she allegedly called in sick on multiple days due to pregnancy-related medical conditions.
On or about Jan. 26, 2025, when Tesla’s call-out system was not operational, she texted supervisor Fountas explaining she had “personal medical stuff going on” and asked to meet in person to discuss her medical situation and need for time off. On or about Jan. 27, 2025, she met with him, disclosed her pregnancy, provided doctor’s notes excusing her prior absences due to pregnancy-related medical conditions and requested time off to accommodate her pregnancy-related medical needs. The lawsuit states that Fountas told her she could take the rest of the day off and could take time off for a leave of absence, verbally approving her request for pregnancy-related accommodation.
On or about Jan. 30, 2025, three days after that meeting, Tesla terminated her employment. The filing alleges that the stated basis for her termination was false and pretextual, and that Tesla in reality terminated her in discrimination based on her sex and pregnancy and in retaliation for her protected activity, including disclosing her pregnancy, requesting reasonable accommodation and taking leave for pregnancy-related medical conditions.
Villanueva brings claims for negligent supervision and retention; workplace discrimination, harassment and retaliation under Nevada employment statutes and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; discrimination, failure to accommodate and retaliation in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process and retaliation in violation of the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act; and intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery. She seeks compensatory damages, emotional distress damages, punitive and exemplary damages, court costs and attorneys’ fees, and has demanded a jury trial.
The lawsuit states that she filed a dual charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Nevada Equal Rights Commission on May 26, 2025. On Sept. 10, 2025, the EEOC closed her case without making findings and issued an immediate right-to-sue notice, after which she filed this lawsuit within 90 days.
The allegations are drawn from the plaintiff’s filing. They have not been proven, and the court has not made any findings or decisions on the merits.
