Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit
cnn.com
cnn.com
It's very easy to calculate financial harm, and for an individual worker, even multiplying that harm by 10x isn't going to be a "significant" amount for a large-ish company.
In this random case, the company was ordered to pay the wages and then the same amount on top of that for the damage caused[1], so it was 2x total.
> Safety violations seldom cost a company more than a few thousand dollars unless someone is killed, and even then payments rarely exceed 5 figures.
This isn't true. Just looking at some random, low-profile cases, you can easily find awards in the six figures[2].
Anyway, what's your point?
I'm not Animats, but there might be a suggestion that being discriminated against is not actually worse than being killed.
https://www.losangelespersonalinjurylawyers.co/average-case-...
[1] https://www.yourlawyer.com/library/workers-compensation-body...
$8,000,000 Verdict: The plaintiff lost three fingers and underwent numerous surgeries to save her hand. A conveyor belt was detected to have a defect and caught her hand in it, leading to extremely debilitating damages.
$150,000 Verdict: While he was operating machinery in a school, the plaintiff severed the tip of his finger. Thanks to the efforts of medical professionals, the finger was reattached; when he pursued legal action, he was found partially at fault and had a 35% reduction of his verdict.
$1,200,000 Settlement: A young boy, age 11, suffered partial leg amputations after being struck by a train. He was playing on the railroad tracks and was caught. A Minneapolis jury was set to hear the case, but a settlement was reached beforehand.
$400,000 Settlement: A 45-year-old man in Minnesota was working on a tri-roller machine at a bakery when the rollers snatched his glove. His arm was pulled into the machine, causing irreparable damages that resulted in amputation below his elbow.
$325,000 Verdict: A man, nearly 40 years old, suffered an amputation after the cast he wore on his broken arm was applied too tightly, causing ischemia.
$5,000,000 Settlement: A man was struck by a semi-truck while on his motor bike. The crash caused severe damages to his leg. Despite numerous surgeries, the leg could not be adequately fixed, and was amputated below the knee.
Note: not legal advice
[1] https://laist.com/news/13-million-settlement-tesla-fremont-f...
He very specifically said unless someone is killed.
The awards for deaths are absolutely astronomical. They have often reached into tens of millions all the way up to billions[1].
There's also a lot of historical precedent for racism leading to workplace deaths.
1. https://www.enjuris.com/blog/resources/biggest-wrongful-deat...
And if you read... the rest of that very sentence... he notes that the penalty in such cases is effectively capped at $100,000. You quote him saying it. And then you rebut it by saying you can find penalties below $1,000,000, which isn't much of a rebuttal.
It was Eberhard who sued Musk trying to get the courts to declare that only he and Tarpenning can be called co-founders of Tesla.
And that backfired because the judge declared that, actually, Musk and JB. Straubel are also co-founders of Tesla.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/judge-strikes-claim-who-can-be-de...
If you're curious, pick a few companies at random and dig into their history. You might be surprised by how late some of their "founders" became involved in the business.
He was an early investor in Tesla in February 2003 after the first employee had already been hired and the prototype car was already built off the Lotus.
1.
A commenter on a previous post a few months ago pointed out that different countries/legal systems have different approaches that I think they may have referred to as punitive vs restorative? And even in systems with both, certain classes of crimes may only be able to approach sentencing from on of those approaches. Which can mean the outcome is more about making the aggrieved party whole again (with potentially a little extra for the inconvenience). It leaves no room for the kind of very very large outcome that acts as a signal to the defendant and any others to not break this law again.
It's less often noted just how badly the woman was injured (third degree burns, significant amounts of skin seared off, etc.) and the details of why McDonald's was held liable (dangerous policy, not an isolated mistake).
The details are worth a read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Rest...
on edit: actually I think the ability to sue for torts is one of the pluses of the American system, and is definitely better than a lot of other supposedly fairer countries.
>The judge reduced punitive damages to $480,000, three times the compensatory amount, for a total of $640,000. The decision was appealed by both McDonald's and Liebeck in December 1994, but the parties settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.
I would think that the settlement out of court was less than 640000, because it was McDonalds that was appealing, thus for them to drop it they would have to pay less than what they were going to anyway (I suppose)
It also says >Liebeck died on August 5, 2004, at age 91. According to her daughter, "the burns and court proceedings (had taken) their toll" and in the years following the settlement Liebeck had "no quality of life". She said the settlement had paid for a live-in nurse.
So I think it was still significantly more than the 160,000 the suit was originally for in order to afford a nurse.
The lawsuit outcome was still bad decision with bad reasoning which is why all those writeups remain unconvincing.
That case is a study in how a sympathetic plaintiff affects the outcome.
Also, you would likely be hard-pressed to tell the difference in bitterness given the relatively short maximum holding times (two hours in the steel urn, half an hour in the glass pot) and how much coffee the average breakfast goes through (it will be hanging out a lot less time than the maximum). Remember, this is McDonald's. The coffee being a bit more bitter won't result in complaints. The coffee being not hot enough will.
Again: it should tell you something that they were not required to, nor did they, lower their holding temperature as a result of this.
https://www.coffeedetective.com/what-is-the-correct-temperat...
> McDonald’s apparently knew that this was unsafe. In the decade before Liebeck’s spill, McDonald’s had received 700 reports of people burning themselves. McDonald’s admitted that its coffee was a hazard at such high temperatures. But it continued the practice, enforced by official McDonald’s policy, of heating up its coffee to near-boiling point. (McDonald’s claimed customers wanted the coffee this hot.)
> Liebeck didn’t want to go to court. She just wanted McDonald’s to pay her medical expenses, estimated at $20,000. McDonald’s only offered $800, leading her to file a lawsuit in 1994.
> After hearing the evidence, the jury concluded that McDonald’s handling of its coffee was so irresponsible that Liebeck should get much more than $20,000, suggesting she get nearly $2.9 million to send the company a message. Liebeck settled for less than $600,000. And McDonald’s began changing how it heats up its coffee.
* https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/16/13971482/...
There's hot and then there's hot.
Typically people do not drink coffee at boiling temperature, for the reason that it would burn their mouths and tongues if they did.
Perhaps instead of blaming the victim, you might try to sympathize. Third degree burns to the genitals would be life-destroying.
If we would be talking about case of little kid not knowing this type of cup burning themselves, even way less than she did, then that's a completely different story. Or was she also somehow mentally impaired to not understand hot=bad in groin? But as facts are presented, people do themselves harm with stuff that is well known and expected to cause harm.
If I let chainsaw in my lap and accidentally start it somehow via normal way it should be started, well that would be also life-changing injury, and result of my utter stupidity and nothing else. I do get I could sue the company making it, and if in US I can actually win but that's ridiculous.
Sorry, as much as I hate corporations including McDonald for many, many of their transgressions, this one is properly ridiculous even with all the facts stated and all the time passed. There is no end to people getting themselves injured or killed every single effin' day, even right now, doing stupid things with dangerous stuff. Some internet sites are just endless daily streams of records of that, and its pretty damn crazy. So instead of lesson being 'be careful with dangerous stuff, the dangerous part is serious', we bend reality backwards so hot coffee is not hot, just warm, because somebody will put it in their laps, or throw it on another person, or will pour it over their face.
Instead of saying ie - McDonald, please present 2 types of cups, one for people like me, call it 'hot that lasts' and charge extra 20c for it as an added value, and another 'warm coffee that won't burn ya even if you shower in it'. I really don't see actual moral lesson for McDonald in this case. A little bit of personal responsibility expected from citizens would be much, much better lesson for society as a whole.
[1] https://letsdrinktea.com/what-is-the-right-temperature-for-d...
They pour it hot and they know it’s hot and they wait.
No one steeps tea in a kettle, so the “holding at 100c” is not relevant.
I don’t think it’s the victims fault, nor do I think it’s McDonald’s fault. Seems hard for people to comprehend an ”accident”
* https://blog.nycm.com/2020/01/protecting-your-palate-what-is...
> Hot beverages such as tea, hot chocolate, and coffee are frequently served at temperatures between 160 degrees F (71.1 degrees C) and 185 degrees F (85 degrees C). Brief exposures to liquids in this temperature range can cause significant scald burns. However, hot beverages must be served at a temperature that is high enough to provide a satisfactory sensation to the consumer. This paper presents an analysis to quantify hot beverage temperatures that balance limiting the potential scald burn hazard and maintaining an acceptable perception of adequate product warmth.
* https://sca.coffee/research/protocols-best-practices
Of course the temperature you make coffee at, and the temperature you serve coffee at, and the temperature you drink coffee at, may not all be the same.
One should also keep in mind the serving container: some retain heat more than others, and so the temperature drop gradient may be different and should probably be considered as well.
† Making (black) tea is something else.
General rule is you want 195-205F water, so you boil, wait 30 seconds, bloom the coffee, wait another 30 seconds, make the coffee.
Finished coffee is around around 185-188F when I use a french press or pourover, I assume the air, container, and the grounds all absorb some of the heat. After about 5 minutes its a very drinkable ~160.
But it’s mental gymnastics. I’m not sure why. I assume some anti-corporate/big company sentiment.
It's unreasonable for customers to assume that McDonald's coffee is significantly hotter than every other coffee on the market, and also hotter than fresh coffee they make themselves at home.
I don't really have strong opinions on the "McDonald's kept the coffee near boiling so that people wouldn't request refills in store" bit, since it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as black coffee is dirt cheap and making it hotter only encourages people to consume more cream, which is expensive. Reasoning aside though, it's pretty obvious why McDonald's was found liable.
"Boiler":
> A boiler is a closed vessel in which fluid (generally water) is heated.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiler
Heated not necessarily to 100˚C. Just a raising the temperature. It's also why there are temperature-controlled kettles (in addition to 'simple' ones that are just on/off):
I think that’s the main benefit.
>Since Liebeck, McDonald's has not reduced the service temperature of its coffee. McDonald's current policy is to serve coffee at 176–194 °F (80–90 °C),[38] relying on more sternly worded warnings on cups made of rigid foam to avoid future liability, though it continues to face lawsuits over hot coffee.
1. Styrofoam cups are good heat insulators, so touching the cup does not communicate how hot the contents are.
2. Management intentionally made the coffee too hot. Making the coffee too hot to drink meant people would not get refills because they would drink it more slowly. This is the company knowingly do something unsafe for profit.
3. The award was the amount of money McDonald's makes on coffee in a single day. It seems like a lot of money, but a very small amount for the giant.
The real nail here is that mgmt sent emails explicitly about number 2.
It is, perhaps, the case that since the laws against workplace-caused deaths are older, their damage values have been pinned to lower pre-inflation numbers and the right response to "How can a hostile-work-environment suit cost the company more than a workplace death?" is to increase punitive payments for deaths.
Should have taken the $15M. I'm not sure $3M leaves anything for the worker after legal costs.
I wouldn't take the $15M if:
- I were very sure the eventual settlement would be much higher and relatively soon.
- I were very wealthy already and just wanted to make a statement.
- The legal costs would eat up vast majority of the $15M.
Discrimination lawsuits are not exactly an easy thing to win, it usually becomes unbearable long before it's overt enough you can take it to court. If we're at the point where he won and this is by the VPs own admission significantly better than 5 years ago then good lord.
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"
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, the case often misrepresented as prohibiting IQ tests in employment, instead established that rule.)
If you can establish specific intent regarding creating racial disadvantage, then no business justification can overcome that, but you don’t have to establish that to establish unlawful discrimination.
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
“In October 2021, a jury awarded him $137 million in damages in the case, but a federal judge threw out that award as excessive. US District Judge William Orrick offered Diaz $15 million in damages in the case instead, but Diaz rejected the offer, choosing instead to have a new trial.”
Hell of a hustle the lawyers have built. They manage a cartel that is slow, labor inefficient and has horrendous quality control.
(I almost forgot, the cartel requires I tell you I am not a member of their cartel and this is not cartel advice. If I don't tell you this, they will send someone to hurt me financially)
Without commenting on the story or the case itself, I have to say that from a purely journalistic perspective, it is very weird to be calling out the race(s) of people related to a story when it’s not central or key to the reporting. The race of Workman seems to bear no relation to the story itself, so why the callout?
in a story about racism you think the person's race bear no relation to the story itself?
Capers Workman is (was) a VP, not the worker who made the racism claim. Though I think it is still fine to include her race, as it adds context to the statements she made.
Workman claimed to have left Tesla in a better position than when she'd joined, which while vague, doesn't to me suggest that she left because it was an inherently racist environment.
I imagine the relation and relevance are apparent from the title of the article and submission:
"Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit"
She seems to have been involved in the suit insofar as she claimed she was in the courtroom during the trial, but beyond that, it's not clear to me why her race is worth specifically remarking upon.
I didn't understand 'callout'. "a statement drawing critical attention to someone's unacceptable actions or behaviour."
You feel stating the race of the VP was a statement drawing critical attention to someone's unacceptable actions or behaviour?
1. To specify, especially in detail.
2. To order into service; to summon into service.
3. To yell out; to vocalize audibly; announce.
Said another way, I don’t understand why it’s worth specifying the race of Workman, since it seems to bear no relation to the story.
1. This contractor complained about racist slurs
2. Tesla fired two contractors who were identified as participating in this
3. Tesla suspended one who drew a racist cartoon
4. Tesla did the usual corporate training stuff.
This news article is light on content, so I'm going to have to go read what new facts came about in the actual case and I really don't care enough to do that, so I'm hoping someone here has :)
If it was only that which I thought it was, then I'm not sure what should have been done instead.
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-03-25/black-tesl...
- People used racist language and wrote that stuff places
- Immediate action was taken but then effectively rescinded (a guy was fired for being racist but brought back in a non-supervisory role)
- 'Soft' retaliation occurred: they were forgiving of people making errors but if you had previously complained, then one mistake would end up with you being fired
- Race-based task discrimination is claimed: Black employees cleaned while White and Hispanic employees took a rest break
At that point I stopped reading, since that was good enough for me to know that it is definitely more than I initially thought.
Judgement for damage: non-taxable
I found this article as well which explains more in depth https://www.picnictax.com/are-legal-settlements-taxable-tax-...
In the first suit jury awarded $137 million, judge lowered that to $15 and they had an option to get that or have a new trial.
They went with a new trial.
So yeah, it was all about the money.