Hacker News Reader

Comment by CJefferson | Hacker News Reader

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 qualifications”."

View on HN

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.

Funny, a guess could also be that they have an entitlement complex and expect to just be believed.

I'm honestly not sure which I expect to be the case. :(

I'm sure they ran this by their lawyers and PR people and were advised as to whether it is the best course of action.

Companies are free to give all the special treatment they want so long as it isn't rooted in one of the protected classes. While gender is one of the protected classes, they never admitted she received said treatment because of her gender. It could have been because they thought she showed a great deal of potential, despite her less than impressive resume.

I'm pretty sure Tesla is referring to her position vs her qualifications here. A company won't usually hire people into senior positions if their qualifications aren't adequate. It's then a case of the employee being promoted up the ranks in line with their performance.

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.

>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.)

The latter indicates that there was something there. Why should someone get special treatment of that nature?

Seems like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario for Tesla. If you promote her, then you're being unfair to the more qualified other candidates. If you don't then you're discriminating against her.

I would find it amusing if Tesla won the case against her, and then lost the case against a male engineer she was promoted over, based on those statements -- you know, for sexist promotions.

Which could work out to be rather cheap PR. Just imagine how much press they'd get for that.

Yes, that really stood out for me too. They've essentially already admitted that they are susceptible to pressure and on top of that they may be in violation of the law too.

Screwed either way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com