Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#101

Post by krainboltgreene » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 5:52 PM UTC

mcbruiser3 wrote: post #100

balozi wrote: post #79

"Tesla added 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 qualifications”. 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 lawsui…

I suspect this is happening a lot in today's PC climate, consciously or unconsciously. It's not a 100% merit-based system anymore. Maybe it never was, I dunno, but I do know some people can never be pleased and are always crying wolf. “[Her termination] was absolutely shocking for AJ. She is devastated,” Really? I find that very hard to believe. If you hate a company so much you're willing to SUE them and make it pub…

> It's not a 100% merit-based system anymore.

This was never the case, at any point, ever.

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#102

Post by mcbruiser3 » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

krainboltgreene wrote: post #101

mcbruiser3 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this is happening a lot in today's PC climate, consciously or unconsciously. It's not a 100% merit-based system anymore. Maybe it never was, I dunno, but I do know some people can never be pleased and are always crying wolf. “[Her termination] was absolutely shocking for AJ. She is devastated,” Really? I find that very hard to believe. If you hate a company so much you're willing to SUE them and make it pub…

> It's not a 100% merit-based system anymore. This was never the case, at any point, ever.

any system involving humans will be flawed, but I don't think the problems being discussed here are as rampant as some would like to think

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#103

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:07 PM UTC

tenpies wrote: post #91

balozi wrote: post #79

"Tesla added 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 qualifications”. 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 lawsui…

I wonder if it admitting it opens them up to legal action by those who were discriminated against.

It would seem to; what Tesla says in their statement seems to pretty clearly be libel per se against the fired employee if false (on top of potentially being, along with the termination itself, potentially illegal retaliation), and, if not quite an admission (since they don't explicitly state the reason for the preferential treatment), strong evidence for illegal sex-based discrimation against other employees and/or applicants, if true. (And because different juries can disagree on facts and findings of fact in a lawsuit against a defendant aren't binding in a lawsuit by a different party against the same defendant, they could potentially be found liable for both.)

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#104

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:09 PM UTC

shard972 wrote: post #2

Is there many cases where you sue your employer, go make public statements about the case and still have a job at the end of the day?

> Is there many cases where you sue your employer, go make public statements about the case and still have a job at the end of the day?

Usually not, but only because things rarely progress to the point of a lawsuit for the kind of thing where such a firing would be illegal retaliation without the employment ending before the suit (allowing illegal termination—whether direct or constructive—to be included in the lawsuit claims.)

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#105

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC

lightbyte wrote: post #8

>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?

> How could she honestly expect to keep her job with an employer she is sueing and smearing in the media?

Well, she might think that the company would be loath to compound it's legal issue by illegally retaliating against her for the harassment claims. (And it's illegal to retaliate for such a claim made in good faith even if the complained-about conduct does not actually create liability for harassment, so Tesla could potentially be liable for retaliation even if not liable for harassment.)

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#106

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:20 PM UTC

J-dawg wrote: post #77

Does anyone else wonder why this is getting so much media attention? Presumably any company above a certain size is likely to have one or two HR-related lawsuits happening at any particular time. I can't imagine this being big news if she worked for IBM or HP. They also shoehorned in an unrelated story about worker safety. What is the Guardian's agenda here? Is it just that Tesla (and Musk) are very high profile at t…

> Does anyone else wonder why this is getting so much media attention?

Because Tesla and Musk have expended (and continue to expend) considerable effort actively seeking media attention and that effort has been very successful.

Of course, once you've attracted that attention, it applies to everything you do, whether you want attention for that specific thing or not.

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#107

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:25 PM UTC

igurari wrote: post #50

falcolas wrote: post #3

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.

That is simply not true (in California). If the underlying lawsuit is based on employment Discrimination or Harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, firing the employee because they filed the lawsuit itself subjects the company to liability. It's called a "Tameny Claim" -- a "Discharge in Violation of Public Policy." [1] Of course, proving that the reason for the firing was Retaliation isn't e…

It's not true in the US at all; retaliation (which includes any adverse job treatment, which termination is a textbook example of) for reports, internal or external, of sexual harassment or discrimination, even if legally unfounded so long as made in good faith, are themselves prohibited acts of discrimination under federal law, in addition to protections that may exist (as in California) under state law.

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#108

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:27 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #64

xadhominemx wrote: post #60

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.

No, the prohibition on termination for unlawful cause does not only apply when the employer admits the unlawful cause.

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#109

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:30 PM UTC

gragas wrote: post #93

CJefferson wrote: post #5

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…

> 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 qualifications”." Why is it bad to admit that? She's fired now anyways.

> Why is it bad to admit that?

Because it's fuel for lawsuits by other people, as it admits that Tesla's hiring and promotion has been based on special treatment and not qualification, and implies (though does not explicitly state) that that was gender-based.

It's also bad because it tells investors that Tesla's hiring is based on special treatment and not ability to do the job. (And, on top of that, that Tesla's management is irresponsible enough to admit that publicly.)

Re: Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment

#110

Post by kolbe » Thu, Jun 01, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

wayn3 wrote: post #98

kolbe wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the event of sexual harassment, you may be right. Certainly, female sexual rights have been a moral point of interest for a century or so, and it's not one that shared by all cultures today. And it was shared by almost none in pre-industrial societies. So, I'm not sure there's the level of proof that it's a "fundamental human right" in the way that liberty has been proven in political philosophy. But praveenbeatle…

its pretty difficult to argue that female sexual rights are not fundamental human rights when youve already established that liberty itself is "proven by political philosophy". "liberty is a fundamental human right unless youre born the wrong sex and want to govern your private parts"

On the surface, yeah. I certainly think that reproductive rights and protection from assault fall under liberty.

But I don't think the right to not listen to guys talk how much they like big tits in the office necessarily falls under the classification of a "fundamental human right." My statement was about the claim that the legal definition of sexual harassment doesn't have a very robust argument for why it's a fundamental human right.