51–60 of 118 posts
Moral of the story: If you sue your employer in an at-will state, you're very likely to be fired. Now, the only winners will be the lawyers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't even know that they did anything wrong.
I was speaking from the perspective of the female engineer.
Its very hard from a legal perspective to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" (or even "preponderance of evidence") with just the word of one person. You would probably need something else too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I am not understanding why there is even a question about it. The minute she went public, Tesla has the right to fire her. If they were retaliating, she had the chance to do that internally. She could leave a paper trail and let them have a chance to correct the problem. I don't know why it is up to Tesla to keep an employee trying to tarnish their image.
> The minute she went public, Tesla has the right to fire her. Technically (and tangentally), they had the "right" from the moment she signed her contract. That's what at-will means - Tesla can fire an employee with no reason whatsoever should it wish. In theory, that power is balanced against an employee's right to quit without notice; but the balance of power is not really with the employee in that change. > she ha…
That is not true at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If every woman who was sexually harrassed just quit, the workplace environment for women would still be like the '50s. Individuals have to make a stand for better treatment for all.
I'm not in the US but I sincerely doubt that harassment is that common.
Moral of the story: If you sue your employer in an at-will state, you're very likely to be fired. Now, the only winners will be the lawyers.
She did not just sue her employer -- she gave interviews to news outlets, touting unproven allegations. Do you think that Tesla should continue to pay someone who is actively and deliberately tarnishing their image, without giving them a chance to make things right (if they were ever wrong to begin with)?
Well, according to both sides of the story, they did an internal investigation - their chance to make things right in her eyes - and classified the accusations as unfounded.
Does that make her right? I don't know. Does that make her a malicious liar? I don't know that either. Did it leave her with avenues other than going public and/or suing the company if she still believes she was wronged? Not in this day and age (though going public before talking to a lawyer is not always in your best interest, particularly when it comes to something related to law, and not just poor customer service).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If every woman who was sexually harrassed just quit, the workplace environment for women would still be like the '50s. Individuals have to make a stand for better treatment for all.
I'm not in the US but I sincerely doubt that harassment is that common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The minute she went public, Tesla has the right to fire her. Technically (and tangentally), they had the "right" from the moment she signed her contract. That's what at-will means - Tesla can fire an employee with no reason whatsoever should it wish. In theory, that power is balanced against an employee's right to quit without notice; but the balance of power is not really with the employee in that change. > she ha…
> That's what at-will means - Tesla can fire an employee with no reason whatsoever should it wish. That is not true at all.
> in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason [...], and without warning.
>At the time, Vandermeyden said she was hopeful her lawsuit and public comments would not end her career at the company. How could she honestly expect to keep her job with an employer she is sueing and smearing in the media? Why would she even want to continue working there?
Perhaps if the people responsible for the problems were fired instead?
Who's responsible for the problems again?
This sounds terrible for Tesla in many directions. Either she is right, in which case Tesla sounds very bad. Alternatively, Tesla is completely right (which I personally don't believe), in which case as they confess that : "Vandermeyden had been granted numerous positions “over other more qualified candidates” and was “given special treatment and opportunities for advancement that were unwarranted based on her qualif…
Most companies would refuse to comment on a situation like this, especially one that is high profile. Based on Tesla's willingness to make such an incendiary public statement, I'm guessing they have a big pile of documentation to back it up. I agree that they probably just opened themselves up to other legitimate lawsuits. Oops.
I'm honestly not sure which I expect to be the case. :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's what at-will means - Tesla can fire an employee with no reason whatsoever should it wish. That is not true at all.
I give you Wikipedia: > in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason [...], and without warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment