Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 290 posts

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#71

Post by publicmenace »

dauertewigkeit wrote: post #62
publicmenace wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Frankly, you cannot see past the tip of your nose. Don't comment on how the law is applied. If nobody sued against discrimination, then discrimination laws would be useless. So fighting discrimination is a public good that we all benefit from. Fighting a lawsuit is hard, especially doing it for almost a whole decade, and against a multi billion dollar corporation. Should the guy get $10,000 for it? He's not getting p…

Lol if you made any of these arguments to a lawyer they'd laugh at you. That's not how damages are supposed to work, not at all.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#72

Post by publicmenace »

shadowgovt wrote: post #64
publicmenace wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A number intended to be punitive, yes. What is your framework for believing that number to be ridiculous? Do you know how such numbers are decided?

Yes. Punitive damages are not appropriate to begin with in this case, and certainly not that high.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#73

Post by publicmenace »

Animats wrote: post #68

It's amazing how big the settlements are for discrimination lawsuits vs. other labor law violations. Wage and hour violations get a slap on the wrist. Safety violations seldom cost a company more than a few thousand dollars unless someone is killed, and even then payments rarely exceed 5 figures.

[flagged]

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#74

Post by notch898a »

peter422 wrote: post #34
publicmenace wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm guessing you are not familiar with the case and only read the CNN coverage. Employers have responsibilities to maintain certain standards at a workplace. Tesla absolutely flaunted those standards to a ridiculous degree. The first jury on the case awarded over $100 million to the plaintiff. Go look at the evidence presented in the trial. It's not one bad word being used once.

I'd argue it's a first amendment violation for the state to require an employee be fired or reprimanded for saying/writing mean words; but that's not to say there wasn't more to it than that.

The civil rights act itself is a slap in the face of the 10th amendment and should be repealed post haste.

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#76

Post by publicmenace »

vkou wrote: post #47
polar8 wrote: post #41

[flagged]

> He reported he regularly heard racial slurs > and saw racist graffiti in bathrooms > and a racially insensitive cartoon. You're going to have to try a lot harder than call me an n-word once for the suit to stick. And if you actually pull it off, it means that both your manager and HR are both asleep at the wheel.

[flagged]

Re: Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit

#78

Post by culi »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
culi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Discrimination lawsuits are not exactly an easy thing to win To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager's behavior, resulted in negative effects distributed along racial lines but also that there was racist intent behind that policy or behavior. This is a lot more than "neglecting to address racial biases"

> To expand upon this. You not only have to prove that a, e.g., policy or manager’s behavior, resulted in negative effects distributed along racial lines but also that there was racist intent behind that policy or behavior. No, you don’t. Once you show that a policy creates concrete disadvantage on racial lines, to overcome liability the employer must prove a sufficient business justification. ( Griggs v. Duke Energy…

If you wanna get into the weeds, it's "disparate treatment discrimination" that requires “intent,” whereas disparate impact discrimination does not.

But this is maybe a useless discussion about the technical requirements. In practice winning a case without proving intent is extremely rare from what I've read

Please correct me if I'm wrong

Post reply on HN