Workers assemble cars on the line at Tesla’s factory in Fremont. David Butow (Photo by David Butow/Corbis via Getty Images)
David Butow | Corbis News | Getty Images
Electric vehicle maker Tesla has settled a racist discrimination lawsuit in which a federal jury previously awarded $3.2 million in damages to Owen Diaz, a Black man who worked as an elevator operator at its Fremont, California factory in 2015.
Attorney Lawrence Organ, with the California Civil Rights Law Group, who represented Diaz told CNBC via e-mail: “The parties have reached an amicable resolution of their disputes. The terms of the settlement are confidential and we will not have additional comment.”
The same firm is representing current and former Tesla employees in a proposed class action lawsuit, Marcus Vaughn v. Tesla Inc., alleging that the racist discrimination and harassment of Black workers has continued at the automaker. Diaz is not part of that litigation.
Organ told CNBC by phone on Friday, “It took immense courage for Owen Diaz to stand up to a company the size of Tesla. Civil rights laws only work if people are willing to take those kinds of risks. Even though the litigation chapter of his life is over, there’s still a lot of work to do for Tesla.”
He said, “When I started this case, I suggested that the conduct would stop if Elon Musk would make a statement and a commitment to his employees that this is not tolerated. We haven’t heard that after seven years of litigation, a nine-figure verdict then a seven-figure verdict. Why isn’t he stopping this conduct? That’s what doesn’t make sense to me. Tesla is supposed to be the factory of the future. But this conduct is from the Jim Crow past.”
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also sued Tesla, accusing the automaker of violating “federal law by tolerating widespread and ongoing racial harassment of its Black employees and by subjecting some of these workers to retaliation for opposing the harassment.”
Tesla has called the EECO’s allegations “a false narrative that ignores Tesla’s track record of equal employment opportunity.”
Diaz’s case
In 2023, as CNBC previously reported, Diaz testified in a San Francisco federal court that his colleagues at Tesla regularly used racist epithets to denigrate him and other Black workers, made him feel physically unsafe at the factory, told him to “go back to Africa” and left racist graffiti in restrooms.
Diaz’s Tesla colleagues also left a racist drawing in his workspace, he said. The drawing was a rudimentary reference to Inki the Caveman, a 1950s-era cartoon whose main character is a Black boy portrayed with large lips, wearing a loincloth, earrings, and a bone through his hair.
During his trials, Diaz recounted that he had encouraged his son to work at Tesla, but would later regret the referral because his son was also exposed to a racially hostile workplace.
In his first trial, a jury awarded Diaz a much larger verdict, including punitive damages, of $137 million after he and his attorneys persuaded the jury that he had endured serious racist discrimination and the company failed to take all reasonable steps to end and prevent that and further civil rights violations.
Diaz and Tesla sought a retrial to decide damages after Judge William H. Orrick reduced the jury’s awarded amount to $15 million. Diaz once again prevailed, securing the $3.2 million verdict.
Elon Musk on X
The settlement with Diaz comes as Tesla CEO Elon Musk faces widespread criticism for his handling of hate speech on X, formerly Twitter, which he owns and runs as CTO.
As NBC News recently reported, Musk has shared unverified claims of cannibalism in Haiti this month on X, and shared posts smearing Haitian migrants as likely cannibals.
Progressive news organization MotherJones also reported that “the tech billionaire has been retweeting prominent race scientist adherents on his platform,” and “spreading misinformation about racial minorities’ intelligence and physiology.”
Tesla, which lacks a traditional public relations office in North America, did not respond to a request for comment.
Uber CEO, Dara Khosrowshahi speaks during the “Intentional Equity in Sustainability” conversation at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders’ Week in San Francisco, California, on November 15, 2023.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images
Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi last week told employees “it is what it is” at a heated all-hands meeting after the company announced it would increase its in-office requirements and change benefits.
The ride-sharing company informed employees on April 28 that they will be required to come into the office three days a week, up from two, starting in June, CNBC reported. Uber also changed the eligibility for its month-long paid sabbatical benefit, raising the requirement from five years at the company to eight years. The company also informed some employees who had been previously approved for remote work that they would be required to start coming in.
Khosrowshahi defended the policy changes against feisty employees who peppered him with questions and criticism at the company meeting and on Uber’s internal forum, according to audio and correspondence obtained by CNBC.
“If you’re here for a sabbatical and this change causes you to change your mind, it is what it is,” Khosrowshahi told employees at the April 29 all-hands meeting. “I’m sorry about that. The reason we want you to be here is the impact on the company. The learning here. We recognize some of these changes are going to be unpopular with folks. This is a risk we decided to take.”
The clash inside Uber highlights the growing tension between tech workers and tech management. Workers for years were drawn to Silicon Valley for its idealistic values, perks and job security, but since 2022, tech companies have cut back on benefits and conducted on-going rounds of layoffs.
Google, for example, informed some employees who were previously approved for remote work that they needed to return to the office if they want to avoid getting caught in layoffs, CNBC reported last month.
Being in person more frequently is better for collaboration, innovation and company culture, Uber told CNBC in a statement.
“It’s hardly a surprise that not everyone was thrilled about changes to remote work and sabbatical policies,” the company said. “But the job of leadership is to do what’s in the best interest of our customers and shareholders.”
After Uber announced the changes in a memo last week, employees flooded the company’s internal Slido forum with questions and comments.
“The Slido essentially has been invaded by questions about the changes we’ve made,” Khosrowshahi said at the beginning of meeting, adding that the questions had been consolidated.
“How is five years of service not a tenured employee? Especially when burnout is rampant in the org,” a highly-rated comment from one employee said, adding that they had already paid for a trip for their upcoming sabbatical.
Khosrowshahi said Uber is a “Gen-AI powered company” that needs to be on its A game. He said employees should be more interested in learning and their impact on the company than on its benefits, which spurred more employee pushback.
Some questions asked if Uber made policy changes in hopes that it would force some people to quit.
“It has nothing to do in terms of a need to drive attrition or layoffs,” said Khosrowshahi, adding that the changes had nothing to do with cost cutting. “None of that is planned. The business is operating really, really well. But listen, good isn’t good enough for us. We have to be great as a company.”
Uber will report its first quarter financial results Wednesday.
Nikki Krishnamurthy, Senior Vice President, Chief People Officer of Uber.
Courtesy: Uber
After the all-hands meeting, Uber Chief People Officer Nikki Krishnamurthy sent out a memo saying some employee comments on the meeting broadcast “crossed the line into unprofessional and disrespectful.”
“That’s not O.K., and we will be speaking with the employees who made them,” Krishnamurthy wrote, according to the memo which CNBC viewed. “Through good times and bad, we are open with each other. Yet when we see behavior like this, it makes it harder to continue being open in the same way.”
Uber in 2022 established Tuesdays and Thursdays as “anchor days” where most employees must spend at least half of their work time in the company’s office and the rest of the week could be spent working remotely for “individual productivity,” according to a now-removed blog post.
“Our business also exists in the real world, on the streets of thousands of cities, and it’s important we stay connected to the places we serve,” Krishnamurthy wrote at the time.
On the company forum, several employees questioned the change to three days in-office, citing insufficient meeting rooms and work space, according to comments viewed by CNBC.
“It’s a challenge every anchor day to even find a place to sit with your team,” one employee comment said.
The goal of anchor days is “to get as many people in the office as possible,” Khosrowshahi said, adding that Uber will be keeping track of employee attendance.
Krishnamurthy addressed the concerns about office space at the company meeting, announcing that Uber is adding 700,000 square feet of office space between its San Francisco Mission Bay and Seattle offices. The additional space will go toward more meeting rooms and cafeterias, said Krishnamurthy, adding the retrofitting will be in construction through 2026.
The Super Heavy booster returns to its launch pad after the SpaceX Starship continued to space after it was launched on its eighth test at the company’s Boca Chica launch pad in Brownsville, Texas, U.S., March 6, 2025.
Joe Skipper | Reuters
SpaceX has been granted permission by the Federal Aviation Administration to launch and land its massive Starship rockets and Super Heavy boosters up to 25 times per year from the company’s Starbase spaceport in Texas.
The aerospace and defense contractor run by Elon Musk was previously restricted to five Starship launches per year from the site. While SpaceX submitted the proposal to increase its launch cadence on the Texas Gulf Coast during the Biden administration, a final environmental assessment was just announced on Tuesday, more than three months into President Donald Trump’s term.
Musk has been a central figure in President Trump’s second administration, leading an effort to shrink the federal government and regulatory agencies, including those that oversee his companies.
The decision that the FAA announced on Tuesday is one piece of the agency’s license review process for launches.
“There are other licensing requirements still to be completed,” the FAA said in an emailed statement, with ongoing reviews that pertain to “policy, payload, safety, financial responsibility and environmental impacts.”
“Once the evaluation process is complete, the FAA will make a determination to approve or deny the license application,” the agency said.
In its final environmental assessment, the FAA decided that SpaceX’s proposal for more launches from Boca Chica, Texas, would have “no significant impact” to the environment in the vicinity. The determination follows a string of SpaceX Starship test flights and explosions, and legal clashes between the company, environmental groups and the FAA.
SpaceX originally designed its Starship rockets with the goal of launching cargo, and as many as 100 people at a time, to space. Musk has long promised SpaceX would conduct manned missions to Mars in the near future with Starship, though a realistic timeline for his goal remains elusive.
SpaceX’s first integrated Starship vehicle launched from the Boca Chica facility in April 2023, and exploded mid-flight. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service soon disclosed details about the aftermath of that explosion, including that a “3.5-acre fire started south of the pad site on Boca Chica State Park land,” following the test flight. Fire and debris destroyed nests, eggs and fragile habitat of endangered species in the area, the New York Times reported.
The next month, the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental advocates, sued the FAA over purportedly inadequate environmental reviews before granting SpaceX permission to conduct those launches.
By August 2024, Texas state and federal environmental regulators had fined SpaceX after determining the company had violated the Clean Water Act at Starbase, repeatedly polluting waters in the area. Musk then threatened to sue the FAA for “regulatory overreach” when the agency said it would levy fines against SpaceX after alleged licensing and safety-related violations during two other launches in 2023.
Musk didn’t sue, however. Instead, he spent almost $300 million to propel Trump back to the White House.
A senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, Jared Margolis, said in an email to CNBC on Tuesday, that his group was “incredibly disappointed, though not surprised, that the FAA has allowed SpaceX to drastically increase the number of launches and the associated harm to an ecologically critical area without taking the time to fully analyze and mitigate the impacts to the community and wildlife.”
A SpaceX spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The decision by the FAA comes days after SpaceX won an election over the weekend to incorporate Starbase as its own city. The mayor and two city commissioners both come from SpaceX’s employee ranks.
Charles Liang, CEO of Super Micro, speaks at the HumanX AI conference at in Las Vegas on March 10, 2025.
Big Event Media | HumanX Conference | Getty Images
Super Micro issued disappointing guidance on Tuesday, a week after the server maker provided preliminary results for the latest quarter that fell far shy of Wall Street’s expectations. The stock slid about 4% in extended trading.
Here’s what the company reported in comparison with LSEG consensus:
Earnings per share: 31 cents adjusted vs. 50 cents expected
Revenue: $4.60 billion vs. $5.42 billion expected
While the latest numbers were below analysts’ estimates, they were in line with early results that Super Micro disclosed last week. The company said at the time that revenue in the fiscal third quarter would be between $4.5 billion and $4.6 billion, and that earnings per share would fall in the range of 29 cents to 31 cents. The stock plummeted 12% following that release.
But Super Micro on Tuesday gave investors their first glimpse into fourth-quarter results, and those are also below expectations. Super Micro called for 40 cents to 50 cents in adjusted earnings per share on $5.6 billion to $6.4 billion in revenue. Analysts polled by LSEG had been looking for 69 cents in adjusted earnings per share on $6.82 billion in revenue.
The macroeconomic environment is likely to weigh on performance, the company said, following President Donald Trump’s announcement in early April of sweeping new tariffs on imported goods. CEO Charles Liang also said that some customers delayed purchases of data center technology in the latest quarter.
“We do expect many of those commitments to land in the June and September quarters, reinforcing my confidence in our ability to meet our long-term targets,” Liang said in the release. He added that “economic uncertainty and tariff impacts may have a short-term impact.”
Super Micro’s revenue grew 19% year over year during the quarter, which ended on March 31. Net income of 17 cents per share were down from 66 cents in the same quarter a year ago.
It’s been a treacherous past year for Super Micro. Prior to that, the stock had been on a tear due to the company’s position in the artificial intelligence market, selling servers packed with Nvidia’s graphics processing units.
Over the summer, short seller Hindenburg Research issued a report on the Super Micro, claiming it had found proof of “accounting manipulation.” In October, Ernst & Young resigned as the company’s auditor after raising concerns about internal control over financial reporting and other matters.
An independent special committee investigated but “did not raise any substantial concerns about the integrity of Super Micro’s senior management or Audit Committee, or their commitment to ensuring that the Company’s financial statements are materially accurate,” according to a statement.
In February, Super Micro filed an annual report for its 2024 fiscal year, which ended on June 30, helping to keep the stock from being delisted on Nasdaq. Staff from the exchange had informed Super Micro that the company was back in compliance with filing requirements, according to a statement.
As of Tuesday’s closing bell, Super Micro had gained 9% so far in 2025, while the S&P 500 index had declined by 4%.
Executives will discuss the results on a conference call starting at 5 p.m. ET.
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.