Tesla sued for severe harassment of black workers at California plant | Hacker News Reader

Tesla sued for severe harassment of black workers at California plant

theguardian.com

107 pointsbeardyw186 comments

Wouldn't it be more effective to pursue criminal charges against the individuals directly responsible? Graffitis, particularly when they involve symbols as disturbing as a noose, are not just offensive, they're criminal acts. They could even be classified as hate crimes or death threats. The perpetrators should be held responsible. Otherwise, they'll simply continue this harmful behavior in their future workplaces, knowing that there are no real consequences.

I think that this is two things:

- these people doing this stuff

- Tesla, once receiving complaints about it, not doing anything about this

The important bit:

> Tesla has failed to investigate complaints of racist conduct and has fired or otherwise retaliated against workers who reported harassment, the EEOC said in the lawsuit.

I don't really know how labor law works on this front but if Tesla knew this was happening and did nothing about it I guess they are considered partly liable for... something?

> but if Tesla knew this was happening and did nothing about it I guess they are considered partly liable for... something?

Tesla has to provide a safe work environment. Just like they have to provide employees with equipment and training to not physically hurt themselves doing their job they need to provide resolution and training to prevent employees from hurting each other.

> According to OSHA, bullying and intimidation constitute a form of workplace violence because workers do not deserve to be treated poorly or abused while trying to make a living.

It's worse than doing nothing.

If you're retaliating you're helping the aggressor.

> Wouldn't it be more effective to pursue criminal charges against the individuals directly responsible?

No, since criminal conviction has a higher threshold

Yes, it requires evidence.

The standard for civil cases is literally "a preponderance of the evidence"...

If both civil and criminal cases determine truth why does one end up with different results?

And the preponderance standard for civil cases is "over 50% likelihood". That's not very strong.

Yeah, it's a civil case, not criminal. Only criminal trials should have standards as high as criminal trials do because only criminal trials punish you by taking away your personal autonomy and freedom. Civil trials cost you money, so obviously the standard is lower.

> Civil trials cost you money, so obviously the standard is lower

... ... ...

Wouldn’t both be in trouble given that Tesla must provide a safe work environment?

Not a lawyer but in US, First Amendment provides freedom to practice hate speech. The best way to combat hate speech, however vile they are is to let them be said in public and to shame them in public with an order of magnitude of a better alternative speech. Providing government right to pursue criminal charges for speech is a slippery slope.

>Graffitis

Graffiti is already plural, or at least uncountable.

It's sad that that happens of course but not unique to Tesla. Ford settled for some racism and sexism cases a few years ago: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/ford-motor-company-pay-10125-m...

Unsurprising. I have some friends that worked in R&D for T. and have told me some horrifying stories.

Do tell.

I'm not sure with this case but with a previous one "California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) ... lawsuit against Tesla alleging systematic racial discrimination and harassment." it appeared they were out to get Tesla without much evidence the company was behaving particularly badly.

I mean in a plant with 30,000 employees someone's probably going to say something racist to someone else but it's a question of whether the company tries to stop it which it seemed they did. Tesla press release at the time: https://www.tesla.com/blog/dfehs-misguided-lawsuit

Most companies would opt to settle this type of thing, it's interesting that Tesla has chosen to not do that. Seems very Muskian.

It's especially curious in light of their early complaint in a separate but related action by CA in which they complained they weren't given the opportunity to settle. They said those charges were politically motivated, I would assume they'll make the same case here.

Again?

Yeah I know right? Didn't they settle for a massive amount last time?

I'll never forget the infamous 'lack of toilet paper' story that came out of Giga Nevada. It freakin came back when Musk bought Twitter: this time garbage piling up and no toilet paper at Twitter. I don't know what is it with Musk and toilet paper but it seems like all these companies have poor organizational issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com