5 ms·

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

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)?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mulletbum 9y ago
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.
- moomin 9y ago
  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.
  - pluma 9y ago
    > I seriously doubt any serious lawyer would take the case without it. If I've learned one thing about lawyers it's that if you really want to sue, you can always find a lawyer willing to do it.
- falcolas 9y ago
  > 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.
  - xadhominemx 9y ago
    > That's what at-will means - Tesla can fire an employee with no reason whatsoever should it wish. That is not true at all.
    - falcolas 9y ago
      I give you Wikipedia: > in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason [...], and without warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
      - xadhominemx 9y ago
        Read a little further down the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_e...
        falcolas 9y ago
        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.
- pluma 9y ago
  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.
falcolas 9y ago
> 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).
- pluma 9y ago
  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.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

mulletbum 9y ago

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.

moomin 9y ago
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.
- pluma 9y ago
  > I seriously doubt any serious lawyer would take the case without it. If I've learned one thing about lawyers it's that if you really want to sue, you can always find a lawyer willing to do it.
falcolas 9y ago
> 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.
- xadhominemx 9y ago
  > That's what at-will means - Tesla can fire an employee with no reason whatsoever should it wish. That is not true at all.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    I give you Wikipedia: > in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason [...], and without warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
    - xadhominemx 9y ago
      Read a little further down the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_e...
      - falcolas 9y ago
        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.
pluma 9y ago
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.

falcolas 9y ago

> 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).

pluma 9y ago
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.