Well, I guess the question at the end of the day is if her claims have merit. If she can prove the discrimination, her termination is illegal. If she's been unreasonable, and Tesla has indeed, as it claims, made every effort to meet her needs, I absolutely can see why they'd fire her.
I don't think that's the relevant point, as they are two separate things: 1) was she discrimated against?; 2) as the parent says, are her subsequent actions legal grounds for firing her regardless?
She can be a victim and still subsequently act in breach of her contract (acknowledging that the contract must be legal).
Tesla isn't merely claiming they've met her needs, they're actually claiming that she's received privileged treatment because she's a woman:
> 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”.
Tesla says, and Vandermeyden says something else. But if this is going to court, I suspect the outcome is very much going to depend on which party can prove their side of the story.
I didn't see where they said it was special treatment b/c she was a woman. They just said it was special treatment (based on my reading of the article).
Tenured professor is one exception I know of (but they're usually an exception in many things). Didn't know the story personally, but heard from other colleagues when I worked at a college.
> Is there many cases where you sue your employer, go make public statements about the case and still have a job at the end of the day?
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.)
>At the time, Vandermeyden said she was hopeful her lawsuit and public comments would not end her career at the company.
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?
Her employer is a company. Companies don't have the emotions people have.
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.
I'm no fan of Telsa but I feel like any large company with a decent PR team would be a little anxious with an employee suing you and talking publicly about it.
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.
But we should these things based on evidence, not just accusations.
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.
> How could she honestly expect to keep her job with an employer she is sueing and smearing in the media?
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.)
Why would she even want to continue working there?
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.
> if the allegations were true, why continue to work there?
That question is probably easier to answer for Tesla than for any other company: It's the place to be if you're any engineer with an interest in renewable energy.
It'd be a tragedy to tell people they have to chose between freedom from sexual harassment and fulfilling their professional aspirations.
"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”.
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.
I suspect this is happening a lot in today's PC climate, consciously or unconsciously. It's not a 100% merit-based system anymore. Maybe it never was, I dunno, but I do know some people can never be pleased and are always crying wolf.
“[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.
It would seem to; what Tesla says in their statement seems to pretty clearly be libel per se against the fired employee if false (on top of potentially being, along with the termination itself, potentially illegal retaliation), and, if not quite an admission (since they don't explicitly state the reason for the preferential treatment), strong evidence for illegal sex-based discrimation against other employees and/or applicants, if true. (And because different juries can disagree on facts and findings of fact in a lawsuit against a defendant aren't binding in a lawsuit by a different party against the same defendant, they could potentially be found liable for both.)
She did not just sue her employer -- she gave interviews to news outlets, touting unproven allegations.
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)?
This is what I am not understanding why there is even a question about it. The minute she went public, Tesla has the right to fire her. If they were retaliating, she had the chance to do that internally. She could leave a paper trail and let them have a chance to correct the problem.
I don't know why it is up to Tesla to keep an employee trying to tarnish their image.
> The minute she went public, Tesla has the right to fire her.
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.
Which means that Tesla would have to indicated that the termination was in retaliation to the reporting of the harassment. It doesn't sound (to my non-lawyer ears) like it did.
But that's now between the lawyers and the courts.
Both this article and the one it references have pictures showing her wearing a distinct Tesla "Get Amped" t-shirt while posing in or in front of a Tesla car. I first thought these were actual Tesla promo shots but the photo credit indicates they were taken for the Guardian.
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.
I'm sure her complaint has plenty of stuff about her trying to address this internally. I seriously doubt any serious lawyer would take the case without it.
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.
> without giving them a chance to make things right
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).
You don't have to be a malicious liar to be wrong. And it's perfectly reasonable to take your employer to court if you suspect the result of the internal processes to be wrong or even covering something up. But as an employee if you take things into public media to pressure your employer via the threat of harming their public image (because that's the entire point of going public like this) -- you better have a pretty airtight case to back up your claims.
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.
That is simply not true (in California). If the underlying lawsuit is based on employment Discrimination or Harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, firing the employee because they filed the lawsuit itself subjects the company to liability. It's called a "Tameny Claim" -- a "Discharge in Violation of Public Policy." [1]
Of course, proving that the reason for the firing was Retaliation isn't easy, but that doesn't make your statement true.
It's not true in the US at all; retaliation (which includes any adverse job treatment, which termination is a textbook example of) for reports, internal or external, of sexual harassment or discrimination, even if legally unfounded so long as made in good faith, are themselves prohibited acts of discrimination under federal law, in addition to protections that may exist (as in California) under state law.
You'd have to prove that she was let go in direct relation to reporting the harassment, and given the at-will employment clause most assuredly included in her employment contract, they (Tesla) wouldn't have to give a reason for letting her go.
That's an uphill battle, and one that only the lawyers and court can really decide.
That is also not true (except that it is an up-hill battle -- I agree with that). A "Tameny Claim" is an exception to at-will employment, and the rules around discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and discharges in violation of public policy are different. California follows the "McDonnell Douglas" burden shifting process at the summary judgment stage for identifying where the presumption is, and who has to show/prove what.[1][2]
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.
"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."
I was once part of a case of alleged sexual harassment at a large tech company. I had worked closely with both the accuser and the accused and was interviewed multiple times as a witness.
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?"
It was difficult to answer definitively to these types of questions, but it was completely intentional. The company was going out of it's way to assess whether the accuser's claims held any merit. The company did find the accuser's claims as meritless, but not without close examination from every angle.
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.
Does anyone else wonder why this is getting so much media attention? Presumably any company above a certain size is likely to have one or two HR-related lawsuits happening at any particular time. I can't imagine this being big news if she worked for IBM or HP. They also shoehorned in an unrelated story about worker safety.
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).
Well… the newsworthiness of any particular thing is pretty far removed from the objective importance of the thing, for any definition of importance or objectivity that don’t make the statement tautological. There was a comment pile on on another thread when someone likened opioid addiction to terrorism, because opioid addiction causes a hundred times more death and injury than terrorism. Terrorism is more newsworthy though.
Almost any article about HP or IBM is less newsworthy than one about Tesla, atm.
Point taken. I was just hoping that someone could shed some light on exactly why it's newsworthy.
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.
> Does anyone else wonder why this is getting so much media attention?
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.
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.
It get it. It just saddens me that basically all media outlets are in the business of clickbait now. Even supposedly 'good' ones like The Guardian. Everything is twisted into the most sensationalist phrasing possible.
Well there is still hope. Buzzfeed is doing some good journalism now. To me it seems like the sensationalism is a necessary evil to make the big bucks but maybe the long, detailed articles are also necessary for reputational reasons. It pushes more responsibility for filtering out crap onto the reader but if it allows good journalism to survive then I'm okay with it.
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”."
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.
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.
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.)
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.
In the event of sexual harassment, you may be right. Certainly, female sexual rights have been a moral point of interest for a century or so, and it's not one that shared by all cultures today. And it was shared by almost none in pre-industrial societies. So, I'm not sure there's the level of proof that it's a "fundamental human right" in the way that liberty has been proven in political philosophy.
But praveenbeatle is referring to the idealistic drive to be a part of a societal change by making up events to exploit for political gain.
Praveenbeatle has been downvoted, but they made a good point. It seems like this stuff has become so politically charged that it's almost impossible to have a non-toxic conversation about it.
Of course it's true (sadly) that sexual harassment happens. It's also true that some women are almost comically hypersensitive about this stuff (like the "dongle" incident at that Python conference).
its pretty difficult to argue that female sexual rights are not fundamental human rights when youve already established that liberty itself is "proven by political philosophy".
"liberty is a fundamental human right unless youre born the wrong sex and want to govern your private parts"
On the surface, yeah. I certainly think that reproductive rights and protection from assault fall under liberty.
But I don't think the right to not listen to guys talk how much they like big tits in the office necessarily falls under the classification of a "fundamental human right." My statement was about the claim that the legal definition of sexual harassment doesn't have a very robust argument for why it's a fundamental human right.
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.
> In a statement to the Guardian, Tesla confirmed the company had fired Vandermeyden, saying it had thoroughly investigated the employee’s allegations with the help of a “a neutral, third-party expert” and concluded her complaints were unmerited.
> “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.
> 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
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.
Looking at her linkedin she went from an inside sales rep to a manufacturing engineer. Her major is biology. Going from inside sales to Manufacturing engineer without an engineering background seems weird.
> 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”.
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.
I think they may just be saying that she had been promoted at a rate much higher than people with similar qualifications, precisely because they were recognising her contribution. In other words, they are contesting her claim that she wasn't being promoted appropriately.
Ive worked for companies that have shorted me financially to the tune of high 5 figure sums. I have been passed over for promotions that were unfounded. I quit, I didnt get lawyers involved. Suing would damage my reputation on the job market. I cant endorse bad behavior, but what makes people expect that a nuclear option wont have consequences, fair or unfair?
I think what you're describing is the real problem here. If there's some sort of (informal) "old-boy's-network" that keeps people from legitimately using the law when they have been wronged, then we should support those willing to publicly start fights with that establishment.
If every woman who was sexually harrassed just quit, the workplace environment for women would still be like the '50s. Individuals have to make a stand for better treatment for all.
If 1% of guys are scumbags, and 5 days a year they really act like it, and you play that out for 10 years.. most women could be harrassed at some point or other even though 99% of guys are innocent.
