It's spelled "Fremont". Named after John C. Frémont (with the accent over the e) which would be pronounced Fre Mon in the French style but is now pronounced Free Mont in the context of the City's name and is spelled without the accent.
1) Their star "witness", Dennis Cruz, seems abnormally susceptible to injuries. Not only to they talk in the report about him injuring himself in two separate ways in two separate lines - breathing fumes from a fire, and repetitive stress injury - but if you google him and Tesla, you find that he's also been complaining to the media before about a third injury, chemical burns from adhesives leaving him temporarily blind. Of all of Tesla's employees, either this guy is curiously inept, or.... something else.
2) Then there's the whole metal fumes incident leaving him long-term debilitated. Now, we don't know the details of the incident. But I work with metal as a hobby, and by far the most likely thing that would be burning would be a zinc coating from galvanization; it's quite possible to accidentally ignite (I've done that quite a few times). And yes, it will make you sick if you breathe in enough of the fumes - the symptoms are similar to the flu. Not just in their nature, but in the fact that they eventually go away. Zinc is an essential dietary nutrient; what makes you sick is a zinc overdose. However, eventually your body works it out, as the body uses up zinc. The concept that this guy was left long-term debilitated by breathing in the most likely fumes - from burning zinc on a galvanized part - sets off BS flags for me.
3) These reporters engaged in heavy ambush journalism. Going in there with a list of "cases", which of course the Tesla people cannot respond to because they had no idea what was going to be brought up in the conversation, in order to record them giving blustery "we'll have to look into that and get back to you" responses, is totally unfair and irresponsible "journalism". And they know very well that even in followup responses, Tesla can't go into the specifics of why cases were found to be without merit for legal reasons. So these people get to go into details of all of the evils Tesla is accused of, and know very well that Tesla won't be able to defend itself. Which means that the story that they wanted to tell already pre-decided.
4) No yellow anywhere marking things on the floor? Oh really?
5) Let's just take them at face value. Let's just say that actually Tesla is engaging in some sort of official secret policy of hiding injuries in order to meet the industry average rate of injuries. Would that be damning specifically to Tesla? Only if other automakers aren't doing the exact same thing. Do they attempt - at all - to assess whether other automakers are doing the same thing, or even suggest that it might be a possibility? Of course not. Why ruin a good story?
6) They then go on to imply at the end that Tesla is a discriminating environment. Do they ever bother to mention that not a single discrimination case against Tesla has ever been upheld? No, of course not. Again, why ruin a good story? Do they bother to mention the half million dollars spent so far by UAW in their PR campaign against Tesla? Again, of course not - they have a story they want to tell.