His doctor ticked the box - he could do the job. Then came the meeting
An eight-year Tesla veteran alleges the company used its own accommodation process to force him out of his job.
The worker, a Quality Engineering Technician 3 at Tesla's Gigafactory Nevada, filed a federal lawsuit on October 6 claiming disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation after Tesla allegedly removed him from his role, placed him on involuntary unpaid leave, and left him without a path back.
According to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, the worker was the first engineering technician hired into the Gigafactory's GigaLab. Over more than eight years, he trained technicians, engineers, and cross-functional personnel and became a go-to resource across technical work, safety, maintenance, and machine-shop operations. He had no history of discipline or poor performance.
He has a lower-back condition that limits prolonged walking, lifting, bending, and twisting. For years, though, it was a non-issue. The GigaLab operated as a team - technicians routinely swapped tasks and helped each other out. Only about two tests in the entire lab were especially tough during flare-ups, and the team handled those without any formal process.
Then things shifted.
The complaint alleges that after new supervision arrived, the worker's disability and medically necessary absences started being treated as problems. During the first half of 2025, he took approved medical leave - including emergency room visits and hospitalization - for serious back pain episodes. At least some of that leave qualified under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which protects employees from being penalized for taking medical leave.
When he was at work, the filing states, he remained productive. He completed more than 400 tracked work tickets during the review cycle and ranked fourth in documented output across his lab group - despite the substantial time away. He had never previously received a negative performance review.
He got one anyway.
The complaint alleges Tesla gave him his first low review in more than eight years, costing him eligibility for a raise and bonus. The reasons cited, according to the filing, were low performance during the first part of the cycle and insufficient interaction with engineers on non-routine testing. The worker disputed both. The period of allegedly low performance lined up with his medical absences, and his shift - roughly noon to midnight during the latter half of the week - limited overlap with engineers who worked earlier hours.
What came next, the complaint alleges, made things worse.
A manager told the worker, in substance according to the filing, that Tesla could not adjust the review to account for his medical time away unless he completed a formal reasonable accommodation request - and that future reviews would continue to be affected without one.
That effectively pushed him into the process.
The filing states a supervisor repeatedly urged the worker to enter Tesla's formal accommodation program, framing it as essentially a formality - a way to document the help he was already receiving so it would not look like preferential treatment. The worker repeatedly said he did not believe a formal accommodation was necessary. After continued pressure, and the warning about future reviews, he went ahead.
His doctor completed Tesla's own medical questionnaire on May 30, 2025. The doctor identified physical restrictions - including a maximum lifting capacity of ten pounds and limitations on bending, twisting, standing, sitting, and walking - and noted they were permanent but subject to reevaluation.
But here is the detail the complaint emphasizes: on Tesla's own form, the doctor checked the box stating the worker's condition did not limit his ability to perform all essential functions of his position. The doctor also indicated his continued assignment posed no significant safety risk. The only additional recommendation was two extra breaks during a twelve-hour shift.
On August 19, 2025, according to the complaint, Tesla's HR team met with the worker and concluded he could not be accommodated in his existing role. The filing alleges Tesla treated restrictions based on his worst days as though they described how he functioned all the time. It also alleges the company relied on a job description that did not match his actual work - citing duties like frequently lifting approximately 35 pounds, collecting samples from the production line, pushing heavy equipment or battery modules, and working in kneeling or crawling positions.
According to the complaint, the worker's actual GigaLab role did not routinely require those activities. Samples were brought to the lab, workstations had seating, and the physically demanding tasks could be managed through the team's established practice of swapping work.
Tesla removed him from his position that same day and placed him on involuntary medical leave, the filing states.
The complaint alleges the worker tried immediately to contact his managers, believing the decision was based on a misunderstanding. They did not meaningfully engage, according to the filing; one manager ultimately told him to communicate only through the accommodation process. The leave was effectively unpaid - the worker was ready and willing to work, but Tesla would not let him return, while leave administrators required medical paperwork that did not match the fact that he was capable of working with accommodation.
Tesla then offered what it called an alternative-job process, the filing states, but it did not identify or offer a specific equivalent position. Instead, the company periodically sent large lists containing dozens of job postings and required the worker to search, apply, and compete - often for roles that had already been filled, closed, or were otherwise unavailable by the time he could pursue them. Available positions also threatened a substantial reduction in compensation, according to the complaint, because he would lose his laboratory pay and shift differential. He went approximately two months without regular wages.
By October 2025, according to the complaint, the worker had no job, no regular income, no meaningful management support, and no viable path back to his position or an equivalent role. He fell substantially behind on his mortgage and lost more than $10,000 in Tesla stock that would otherwise have vested.
Facing continuing unpaid leave with no effective accommodation from Tesla, he took a job with another company starting around October 20, 2025. The complaint characterizes his departure as constructive discharge - where an employer's conduct makes continued employment untenable, effectively forcing the worker to leave.
The worker had filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on September 4, 2025 (Charge No. 550-2025-02909). The EEOC completed its investigation and issued a right-to-sue notice on July 9, 2026.
The lawsuit brings claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Nevada disability law, and the FMLA. In practical terms, the complaint alleges Tesla discriminated against the worker because of his disability, failed to provide reasonable accommodation or genuinely explore alternatives, and penalized him for taking protected medical leave. He is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, reinstatement or equivalent relief, and attorneys' fees.
For HR teams, this complaint puts the accommodation process itself under the microscope - specifically, what happens when a procedure designed to support an employee allegedly becomes the mechanism for removing them.
None of the allegations in this complaint have been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings on the merits.
