Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
She can be a victim and still subsequently act in breach of her contract (acknowledging that the contract must be legal).
> 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”.
If that's true, they are admitting to sexual discrimination and opening themselves up to further lawsuits.
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.)
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?
In large organisations, the effect of employee lawsuits may even be beneficial, because it allows for a mechanism to escalate serious issues before they become even worse, while the high barriers in terms of cost, emotional burden etc. serve to discourage frivolous complaints.
You forget, companies solely consist of people and are solely owned by people. It's a legal vehicle.
People, of which companies consist, have feelings and emotions.
It's their job to make the company look good so it would seem logical they would want to try and get this water under the bridge.
If they thought it was valid, it seems the PR team would push for settlement without admitting wrongdoing but if they really do believe she is out on a limb, firing her does seems like the go to option and let it go to court to try and clear the charge.
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.
Who's responsible for the problems again?
When the company "said" they were unmerited, that is.
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.)
Because she's not independently wealthy. And she's perfectly aware of the negative impact on prospective employers' willingness to hire here -- until and unless she's fully vindicated, at the end.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/following-allegati...
In fact, they probably surpassed EA when employees dropped on the floor at work due to too much work.
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.
“[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 public, then these two things seem irreconcilable.
This was never the case, at any point, ever.
Now that's a career name.
Now, the only winners will be the lawyers.
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)?
I don't know why it is up to Tesla to keep an employee trying to tarnish their image.
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 way, but corporations are not their managers and are not their shareholders.
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.
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 had the chance to do that internally
Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, it sounds like she tried to do exactly that - resolve it internally - and it didn't work out: her allegations were classified as "unfounded." This means her options for resolving the issue internally were practically exhausted.
That is not true at all.
> in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason [...], and without warning.
But that's now between the lawyers and the courts.
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.
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).
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.
Of course, proving that the reason for the firing was Retaliation isn't easy, but that doesn't make your statement true.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=tameny+v+atlantic+...
That's an uphill battle, and one that only the lawyers and court can really decide.
Ultimately, at trial the burden of proof is on the employee, but the standard of proof is low -- more likely than not, which is basically 50.1%. If the employee survives summary judgment, their chances of winning (or settling favorably) are probably pretty good.
[1] See, e.g., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Diego+v.+Pilgrim+U...
[2] The burden shifting process is:
"When a plaintiff alleges retaliatory employment termination ... as a claim for wrongful employment termination in violation of public policy, and the defendant seeks summary judgment, California follows the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [36 L.Ed.2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817] to determine whether there are triable issues of fact for resolution by a jury. [Citation.] In the first stage, the `plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a "protected activity," (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer's action.' [Citation.] If the employee successfully establishes these elements and thereby shows a prima facie case exists, the burden shifts to the employer to provide evidence that there was a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. [Citation.] If the employer produces evidence showing a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, `the presumption of retaliation "`"drops out of the picture,"'"' [citation], and the burden shifts back to the employee to provide `substantial responsive evidence' that the employer's proffered reasons were untrue or pretextual."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_e...
The scenario: we were working on a prototype project that would yield preferential standards for implementation around a certain set of components. Our team consisted of 7 people. Roughly 2 months worth of effort, given the systems involved. Our objective was to present a unified opinion for implementation standards of said components, with everyone on the team supporting the opinion. I was the lead engineer of the group, and we reported to a VP/Eng.
At the conclusion of the project, we had evaluated multiple approaches as a group and prepared to make a suggestion for presentation to the eng group as a whole. In the process of doing so, one engineer pushed for an approach that had been rejected by everyone on the team. Despite our reasons for rejection, this engineer refused to advocate for another approach that the rest of the team had coalesced around. We went to our VP for support, who agreed with the findings of the rest of the team. Decision made, presentation made, and the project is completed.
Two weeks later, I receive a call from an HR representative to schedule a "deposition" (their words, but no lawyers involved.) They ask a ton of questions, which progressively become more ambiguous.
- "Have you observed anyone on the team making racial or sexist comments?"
- "Is anyone on the team overtly driven by race, religion, gender, or a personal cause?"
- "Have you observed anyone receiving preferential treatment on the team?"
- "Have you noticed any problematic or contentious interactions across members of your team?"
The accusation: the engineer complained they had been discriminated against by the VP because of their gender, sexual orientation, and nationality. And the proof, per the accuser, was that the engineer's suggested approach from our project had been rejected. Oddly enough, the HR representative never asked me about that aspect.
One thing I learned from that experience is that public commentary about harassment situations isn't so simple as it is often described.
A lawyer named "Lawless" in real life.
It's like there could actually be a Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe LLP
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).
Almost any article about HP or IBM is less newsworthy than one about Tesla, atm.
It feels like there's a kind of schadenfreude at play, like people are delighted to see that an innovative 'new' company has any problems at all. Nobody would be the slightest bit interested in knowing if (say) Toyota had workplace accident rates 30% above average.
Or, (putting the tinfoil hat on), there's a PR 'submarine' at play here and someone stands to gain from rubbishing Tesla.
To make money by getting clicks/selling papers. This story deals with the coolest company led by the coolest CEO in the coolest sector and that same sector is known for having "problems" with women. Of course it's a story.
See good Guardian articles here: https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read
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.
Screwed either way.
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. :(
It sounds like Tesla is saying she was promoted, even over others with higher qualifications, precisely because of her contributions.
In jobs that I've had over the years, I've also corrected mistakes made by more senior colleagues and made suggestions that they have not made. But I had no expectation to suddenly be paid as much or more than them.
Why is it bad to admit that? She's fired now anyways.
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.)
> “Despite repeatedly receiving special treatment at the expense of others, Ms Vandermeyden nonetheless chose to pursue a miscarriage of justice by suing Tesla and falsely attacking our company in the press,” a Tesla spokesperson said. “After we carefully considered the facts on multiple occasions and were absolutely convinced that Ms Vandermeyden’s claims were illegitimate, we had no choice but to end her employment at Tesla.”
She tried to bully people utilising identity politics, the company got fed up and fired here. Too bad Tesla didn't also sue her back, it's a real shame that criminals like herself can get away with it, just because they are women. This encourages women to start weaponizing sexual harassment claims, they can gain a lot by bullying a company, yet they have nothing to lose.
Wow, they should not have made that statement. Why was she given these opportunities? Was there a sexual element? If those who were more qualified get a whiff of this they might have a pretty good case purely based on this statement of fact. I am not a lawyer but have dealt with enough legal crap to know you do not make statements like that. I cringe to think that a lawyer advised them to say this or was OK with making such a statement.
As for the merits of the case. Don't have a clue. That's what court is for.
It makes Tesla look even worse, acknowledging that the only reason that person got the job is that because she was a woman, a man wouldn't have gotten the same job for the same qualifications.