9 ms·
Tesla fires female engineer who alleged sexual harassment
- shard972 9y agoIs 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?
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoWell, 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.
- sambe 9y agoI 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).
- SomeStupidPoint 9y agoTesla 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”.
- ocdtrekkie 9y agoTesla 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.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoWow they must be really screwed up at Tesla then.
- softawre 9y agoThey didn't mention "b/c she was a woman" at all.
- jasonlotito 9y ago> 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: If that's true, they are admitting to sexual discrimination and opening themselves up to further lawsuits.
- NotSammyHagar 9y agoI 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).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mysterydip 9y agoTenured 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.
- idibidiartists 9y agoIn federal and state government jobs, you can sue and stay.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> 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.)
- falcolas 9y agoMoral of the story: If you sue your employer in an at-will state, you're very likely to be fired. Now, the only winners will be the lawyers.
- devoply 9y agoAs well as other employees who will not have to suffer harassment as a result.
- kolbe 9y agoFrivolous accusations that get proven false probably result in the opposite.
- elbrian 9y agoShe 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)?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- mulletbum 9y agoThis 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.
- moomin 9y agoI'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.
- CJefferson 9y agoThis 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”."
- jacquesm 9y agoYes, 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. Screwed either way.
- partisan 9y agoThe latter indicates that there was something there. Why should someone get special treatment of that nature?
- rootusrootus 9y agoMost 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.
- taeric 9y agoFunny, a guess could also be that they have an entitlement complex and expect to just be believed. I'm honestly not sure which I expect to be the case. :(
- btbuildem 9y agoI'm sure they ran this by their lawyers and PR people and were advised as to whether it is the best course of action.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- abhorrant 9y agoTherese Lawless, Vandermeyden’s attorney Now that's a career name.
- hkmurakami 9y agoNominative determinism at work perhaps?
- lightbyte 9y ago>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?
- randomguy23 9y agobecause maybe it was a ploy to get a better raise? who knows. you're right, though - if the allegations were true, why continue to work there?
- matt4077 9y ago> 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.
- softawre 9y agoHeh, quite the ploy to get a raise. Takes the whole "get another offer" plan and turns it up to 11.
- matt4077 9y agoHer 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.
- tertius 9y ago> Companies don't have the emotions people have. You forget, companies solely consist of people and are solely owned by people. It's a legal vehicle. People, of which companies consist, have feelings and emotions.
- nickpinkston 9y agoSide note: "Therese Lawless, Vandermeyden’s attorney" A lawyer named "Lawless" in real life. It's like there could actually be a Dewey, Cheetham, and Howe LLP
- bluedino 9y agoTheir head of HR just left last week. The replacement is from EA, a company who really knows how to handle their employees. https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/following-allegations-of-discrimination-and-labor?utm_term=.mpqeb87ZB#.cfNK3rb81 https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/following-allegati...
- pandaman 9y agoEven though the article you referenced says "Entertainment Arts" she is actually from the "ea_spouse"'s EA (Electronic Arts) as per Tesla's own PR: https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-welcomes-gaby-toledano https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-welcomes-gaby-toledano
- bobsam 9y agoTo be fair, Tesla was already at EA-level human mismanagement. In fact, they probably surpassed EA when employees dropped on the floor at work due to too much work.
- S_A_P 9y agoIve 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?
- blackguardx 9y agoIf 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.
- iagovar 9y agoI'm not in the US but I sincerely doubt that harassment is that common.
- xadhominemx 9y agoHarassment is very common in the US and even more common in Europe.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jbooth 9y agoIf 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.
- matt4077 9y agoI 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.
- gdulli 9y agoDid Musk warn her that he was going to be the alpha in the relationship?
- sctb 9y agoPlease don't post unsubstantive comments like this here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- camus2 9y ago> 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.
- kolbe 9y agoIf you'll notice, they were careful not to mention it was because she's a woman. It could be for any number of reasons.
- jtms 9y agoNo where in their statement do they say they based said special treatment on gender - you assumed and added that.
- wbhart 9y agoI 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.
- Grue3 9y agoThis is the first time I heard of this. Wonder why the Uber story blew up so much, but the Tesla one was pretty much ignored?
- samfisher83 9y agoLooking 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.
- J-dawg 9y agoDoes 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).
- netcan 9y agoWell… 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.
- J-dawg 9y agoPoint 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.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago>What is the Guardian's agenda here? 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.
- balozi 9y ago"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.
- tenpies 9y agoI wonder if it admitting it opens them up to legal action by those who were discriminated against.
- dragonwriter 9y agoIt 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.)
- mcbruiser3 9y agoI 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.
- krainboltgreene 9y ago> It's not a 100% merit-based system anymore. This was never the case, at any point, ever.
- jroseattle 9y agoI 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.
- rebootthesystem 9y ago> 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.
- whitemale 9y ago> 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.