She said she wasn't disabled. Her doctor agreed. Tesla allegedly kept insisting
A former Tesla Gigafactory worker alleges the company branded her disabled against her wishes - then fired her before its own deadline.
The complaint, filed October 28, 2026 in the US District Court for the District of Nevada, tells the story of a production associate at Tesla's battery plant in Storey County who says a workplace chemical burn spiralled into a 17-month standoff over a disability she insists she never had.
The worker started at the Gigafactory in December 2020, earning $17.00 per hour with health benefits, equity awards, and eventually raises plus a 15% shift differential. By July 2022, she had been moved to Zone 0 in Battery Pack, where she worked with an adhesive used in battery production.
That month, according to the complaint, the adhesive burned her. The reason, the filing alleges: Tesla had run out of protective aprons. A line lead allegedly told her the factory ran out of aprons "all the time" and could not say when more would arrive. A coworker, the filing adds, personally observed PPE shortages and Tesla pressuring workers to keep producing despite chemical-exposure risks.
The worker reported the injury and was treated at the onsite clinic, the complaint states. She did not file a workers' compensation claim - because, the filing alleges, she feared Tesla would fire her if she did.
Here is where the case takes its central turn.
The worker did not ask for a disability accommodation, according to the complaint. She asked to be moved to a different production area - away from the adhesive, into safer conditions, using the same protective equipment any production associate would use. Tesla's own job description for her role, dated May 5, 2022, did not list work with the adhesive as a required task, the filing states.
But on August 10, 2022, the complaint alleges, an HR representative and a supervisor called the worker into a meeting and told her to fill out paperwork declaring she had a disability that prevented her from working with adhesives. She refused. She was not disabled, she told them.
What followed, according to the filing, was involuntary unpaid leave. Tesla placed her on administrative leave after the meeting, then converted it to medical leave effective August 14, 2022 - six days before its own deadline for her to submit medical paperwork. The filing notes this would not be the last time Tesla jumped ahead of its own deadlines.
From there, the complaint describes a drawn-out standoff lasting well over a year.
Tesla demanded medical documentation supporting a disability accommodation, the filing alleges, but failed to provide the specific chemical safety information the worker's doctor needed to complete that documentation. The worker says she began requesting the adhesive's Safety Data Sheet in July 2022. When an HR representative responded, according to the complaint, she sent a webpage link to every SDS Tesla used - more than 10,650 items - without identifying which one was the adhesive in question.
On August 18, 2022, the worker saw a doctor at Pinnacle Medical Group specifically to address the paperwork, the complaint states. The provider recorded that the earlier rash had resolved, there was no current rash, and the chemical information still had not been provided. Because the provider had not evaluated the original rash, she could not confirm its cause with the certainty Tesla's forms required.
Tesla kept the worker off the job anyway, the filing alleges.
Meanwhile, the complaint states, the financial toll mounted. In November 2022, Tesla allegedly suspended the worker's employer-provided benefits - including health insurance - on the basis that she was not maintaining her employee contributions. The complaint calls this out: Tesla knew it had excluded her from work, which meant she had no Tesla wages to fund those contributions. She requested help with the electronic benefits system three times between November and December 2022, the filing states. No useful assistance came.
Her bonus from her last review never arrived, the complaint alleges, and her stock awards stopped vesting. On May 30, 2023, the worker complained to a Tesla ADA specialist of "medical discrimination and retaliation," including the lost stock, and said she would take the matter to the EEOC, according to the filing.
Then came the September 21, 2023 meeting.
The worker again explained she was not disabled, that her burn had healed, and that she wanted production work away from the adhesive, the complaint states. Tesla's own written recap of the meeting acknowledged all of this - including that the workstation had run out of protective aprons, that she had sustained a chemical burn, and that she had never requested a disability accommodation.
Despite that acknowledgment, the complaint alleges, an accommodations specialist declared her request was a disability accommodation requiring medical documentation. Tesla demanded an unrestricted medical release by September 28, 2023, under threat of termination for "job abandonment."
On September 27, 2023, the filing states, the worker once again asked for the specific chemical data sheets. Tesla's response, according to the complaint: the information was not available for employee distribution, and the company would not provide it. In the same message, Tesla repeated its demand for a full-duty release by the next day.
The specific safety data sheets finally arrived on October 4, 2023, the complaint states - more than a year after the leave began.
Once the worker's doctor reviewed the chemical information, the filing alleges, the physician explained the adhesive contained known irritants that would cause a reaction in any person and declined to characterise her as disabled. The worker submitted the completed medical questionnaire on October 24, 2023, meeting Tesla's extended deadline, the complaint states. Her physician answered "no" to questions about impairment limiting major life activities or job functions, expressly stated the worker was not disabled, and noted the prior work area had caused chemical burns because PPE was unavailable.
That was not enough, according to the complaint. On October 30, 2023 - the same day Tesla acknowledged the worker's clarification responses - the filing alleges the company demanded yet another supplemental medical questionnaire, challenging the physician's answers. The worker responded that her doctor had already answered the questions, the complaint states, and requested reimbursement for the medical visits: $150.00 each, $450.00 in total, with no Tesla paycheck for 14 months and no health benefits.
On November 7, 2023, the filing alleges, Tesla declared the "interactive process" concluded. The worker remained locked out of the workplace.
The final chapter came in January 2024. On January 10, the complaint alleges, Tesla told the worker to return without restrictions to any assigned area - including the adhesive work - or submit further disability paperwork by January 17. No assurance that the apron shortages had been fixed, the filing states.
Tesla fired her on January 12, 2024. Five days before the deadline it had just set.
The termination letter, dated January 11, attributed her absence to "a serious health condition" and characterised more than 12 months of imposed leave as an ADA accommodation, the complaint states. It also told her she could reapply once medically released to return. When the worker pointed out the unexpired deadline, the filing alleges, Tesla acknowledged date errors in a revised letter but maintained the termination effective that same day.
The EEOC later weighed in. On March 3, 2026, the agency issued a reasonable-cause finding that Tesla discriminated against the worker by regarding her as disabled, forcing her to take unpaid leave, and suspending her benefits, according to the filing. Conciliation failed. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on July 30, 2026.
The complaint brings seven claims: disability discrimination under the ADA and Nevada law, unlawful disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, retaliation under both federal and state law, coercion and interference with ADA rights, and tortious discharge in violation of Nevada public policy. The worker seeks back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief including reinstatement.
A concurrent arbitration demand was filed with JAMS on October 27, 2026, though the worker has reserved the right to challenge the arbitration provision's enforceability in court.
For HR professionals managing accommodation processes, the case is a pointed reminder: when a worker raises a safety concern, funnelling it into a disability framework the worker actively disputes can create exposure on both fronts at once.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has ruled on the merits.
