Tesla must pay ex-worker $15M for “disturbing” racist abuse, judge rules
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Not sure I agree with that conclusion and would prefer to see companies permitting systemic racism absolutely thrashed in civil court not only to make an example but to make the cost of garbage treatment of workers higher than the cost of changing course. 15 million, even once per year, isn't a disincentive because it easily costs more than that to change ways of working at any company.
Based on the compensatory damages here, much larger punitive damages could have been held to be constitutional, but that would depend on the egregiousness and other factors.
This will likely be appealed, so this isn’t necessarily the end of the road. It’s just the ‘turn’ card that reveals more information and positions the parties for new settlement discussions.
A fair punishment would be to reward the victim a random percentage of the company's net profits with 10% increments every year ( 10,30,40% ) with 40% max for as many number of years the person worked there and a 95% tax on that award to prevent they guy taking over the company. The company will suffer distress that is arbitrary and prejudicial in nature just like the victim did.
Fines are a joke, a slap in the face of justice. The affect the poor only even when proportional to income. 25% of a poor person's wealth has much more impact than 25% of a billionaire's wealth or a corporation's profits.
While I believe in mercy strongly (especially when the victim supports it), justice has to have fairness and equal application and is better left not administered than administered partially.
What if the theft was "random and arbitrary", as most thefts are? Why does soemthing of equal value need to be taken in the case of a theft, but when it comes to racism, a figure of over $100m is justified? This makes absolutely no sense.
However as the article mentioned this is not the only lawsuit for this kind of thing against Tesla. Maybe one verdict isn’t enough but a couple of them might be.
Do the supervisors not have any kind of personal liability in these cases?
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1767833.html
> Plaintiff alleges that younger nurses called her an “oldbie” or “old bitch” and referred to rice she ate as “lice.” (Lee Dep. R. #33-4 at 170) She asserts that one nurse stated, “you Chinese people eat anything that crawls and walks” and also stated that Plaintiff does not have “chinky eyes” even though she is Chinese. (Id.) In December 2013, Plaintiff reported the incident to a different supervisor, Debbie Brosovich (“Brosovich”), who responded that she was “overreacting” and being “sensitive.”
> Increased surveillance and discipline, whether warranted or not, do not constitute a material adverse change in the terms of employment in the discrimination context because those actions do not “constitute[ ] a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 402 (6th Cir. 2008).
So... you can actually have a policy that members of a protected class are subject to additional surveillance and discipline without cause, so long as you don't fire them or take away their benefits?