4 ms·

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

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.
        xadhominemx 9y ago
        ya the specifics of this case matter but at-will does not not someone could be fired for literally any reason.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        No, the prohibition on termination for unlawful cause does not only apply when the employer admits the unlawful cause.
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.

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.
      - xadhominemx 9y ago
        ya the specifics of this case matter but at-will does not not someone could be fired for literally any reason.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        No, the prohibition on termination for unlawful cause does not only apply when the employer admits the unlawful cause.

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.