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).
