71–80 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read a little further down the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_e...
Which means that Tesla would have to indicated that the termination was in retaliation to the reporting of the harassment. It doesn't sound (to my non-lawyer ears) like it did. But that's now between the lawyers and the courts.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)?
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.
This crosses the line between calling out a problem and directly attacking a brand.
I'd be interested in seeing how her allegations hold up in court but the way the Guardian presents her case makes this less about the alleged problems and more about herself vs Tesla. Even if she hadn't known this would result in her being fired, the Guardian must have seen it coming a mile away.
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.
I'm sure her complaint has plenty of stuff about her trying to address this internally. I seriously doubt any serious lawyer would take the case without it. There's a difference between tarnishing an image and drawing attention to illegal behaviour. In particular, the intent of the second can be done with the intention of improving the firm by getting it to stop the illegal behaviour. The managers may not see it that…
If I've learned one thing about lawyers it's that if you really want to sue, you can always find a lawyer willing to do it.
What is the Guardian's agenda here? Is it just that Tesla (and Musk) are very high profile at the moment? I'm not saying she doesn't have a legitimate complaint, she may well do and that's for a court to decide. But this simply wouldn't be news if it happened at a 'boring' company. (Well maybe The Boring Company).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)?
> without giving them a chance to make things right 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…
An employer-employee relationship is ultimately built on trust (enshrined in a contract but still based on mutual assumptions of good faith). There's nothing strictly wrong with airing your dirty laundry in public but at that point you're terminating the relationship. The only question left at that point is whether there are any remaining obligations but thinking you can just carry on as usual is absurd.
I'm not even arguing about the emotions involved. Tesla may have betrayed her trust if her allegations are true, but she definitely betrayed the company's trust by actively dragging this into the headlines.
Its amazing to see a company so openly admit that it gives special treatment to some employees. Everyone suspects that to be the case but nobody says a thing. Maybe the rest of us should file lawsuits.
Did Musk warn her that he was going to be the alpha in the relationship?