Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Lawsuit Accuses Tesla of Knowingly Selling Defective Vehicles (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the potentially-meritless dept.

A new lawsuit from a former Tesla employee claims the company knowingly sold defective cars, and that the employee was demoted and eventually fired after reporting the practice to his superiors. The lawsuit was filed in late January in New Jersey Superior Court under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The Verge reports: The former employee, Adam Williams, worked for Tesla as a regional manager in New Jersey dating back to late 2011. While there, he says he watched the company fail "to disclose to consumers high-dollar, pre-delivery damage repairs" before delivering its vehicles, according to the complaint. Instead, he says the company sold these cars as "used," or labeled as "demo/loaner" vehicles. "There's no merit to this lawsuit. Mr. Williams' description of how Tesla sells used or loaner vehicles is totally false and not how we do things at Tesla," a representative for the company said in response to the lawsuit. "It's also at odds with the fact that we rank highest in customer satisfaction of any car brand, with more owners saying they'd buy a Tesla again than any other manufacturer. Mr. Williams was terminated at Tesla for performance reasons, not for any other reason." The lawyer for the plaintiff could not be reached in time for publish.

Williams says in the court filing that he reported this behavior in late 2016 and early 2017 to his supervisor, as well as Lenny Peake, Tesla's East Coast Regional Manager, and Jerome Guillen, a company vice president. Shortly after that, he claims, he was demoted to service manager of the Springfield, New Jersey Tesla store. He then says he was demoted again later in the year to a "mobile manager" position and was ultimately fired in September 2017. In the lawsuit, Williams argues that he was terminated for reporting the alleged lawbreaking practices, and he should therefore be covered by CEPA's whistleblower protection.

3 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. omg by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He alleges Tesla sold used cars that had been repaired as used cards, without labelling them as "lemons"

    Thats.... a normal thing to do? It's not like they were claiming to be selling the used cars as new.

  2. Wait, what? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A former Tesla employee claims the company knowingly sold defective cars, often referred to as âoelemons,â

    Wow, lemons? That sounds serious! If a vehicle is in the shop more than it's out, then that's certainly grounds for return or replacement. As far as I know, Tesla is pretty good about providing loaner vehicles, but I'd be pissed off if my car were in the shop all the time — especially since the only shop is Tesla. Is there any more information about this?

    The former employee, Adam Williams, worked for Tesla as a regional manager in New Jersey dating back to late 2011. While there, he says he watched the company fail âoeto disclose to consumers high-dollar, pre-delivery damage repairsâ before delivering its vehicles, according to the complaint. Instead, he says the company sold these cars as âoeused,â or labeled as âoedemo/loanerâ vehicles.

    So just to be clear, Tesla had demo and/or loaner vehicles which were repaired (at some expense which might be described as "high") before they were delivered to customers. These repairs were performed by Tesla, which then sold them as demo and/or loaner vehicles. I'm failing to see a problem here. Their status as demo and/or loaner vehicles was disclosed to the customer, and the problems with the vehicles were repaired before delivery. Who's been harmed in any way? Where in fact is the fraud? What is this alleged whistleblower blowing the whistle about?

    Maybe there's more to this, and this just isn't a very good article.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Wait, what? by Obfuscant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wow, lemons? That sounds serious! If a vehicle is in the shop more than it's out,

      TFA mentions "lemons". It also says "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repairs." "Pre-delivery" and "damage repairs" means the car wasn't "in the shop" because of some failure in hardware. It means that there was damage to the car before it was ever sold the first time. This is not a sign of poor design or part failure. It's what happens when someone backs a forklift into a car after it comes off the assembly line but before it is delivered. Or it gets damaged going onto the delivery truck.

      It's not a "lemon" in any sense of the word.

      So just to be clear, Tesla had demo and/or loaner vehicles which were repaired (at some expense which might be described as "high") before they were delivered to customers.

      They had vehicles. They didn't have to be demo or loaners, they could have been in the factory being built when the damage occurred.

      These repairs were performed by Tesla, which then sold them as demo and/or loaner vehicles. I'm failing to see a problem here.

      Me either.

      Maybe there's more to this, and this just isn't a very good article.

      This is slashdot.

      What I question is the headline, since the lawsuit isn't about selling defective vehicles, it's about being fired, and selling "high-dollar pre-delivery damage repair[ed]" vehicles isn't selling defective vehicles anyway. There is no proof that the damage was the result of a defect, and after they are repaired (i.e. when they were sold) they didn't have the damage anymore.