What lousy lawyers Tesla must have. There were TWO jury trials, and the plaintiff was successful in BOTH of them. There are also many companies with illegally

What lousy lawyers Tesla must have. There were TWO jury trials, and the plaintiff was successful in BOTH of them. There are also many companies with illegally discriminatory workplace environments in existence. Just because "pedo guy" Musk claims something doesn't mean it's beyond criticism. There's always more than what's reported in the news. It's not like we're going to read the court transcripts. Please be specific about what's wrong with this law, otherwise it seems like you are blowing smoke to minimize Tesla's blame. I'll quote from the first opinion at https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-4 https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-4 as a starting point: > The jury heard that the Tesla factory was saturated with racism. Diaz faced frequent racial abuse, including the N-word and other slurs. Other employees harassed him. His supervisors, and Tesla's broader management structure, did little or nothing to respond. And supervisors even joined in on the abuse, one going so far as to threaten Diaz and draw a racist caricature near his workstation. ... > On Diaz's second day of work, Diaz saw the N-word scratched into a bathroom stall. Id. at 401:6-12. Over the course of his employment, more racist bathroom graffiti was added. Id. at 403:5-15. He encountered swastikas and the phrase “death to all [N-words].” ... > The jury, in special verdicts, found that: (1) Tesla subjected Diaz to a racially hostile work environment, (2) Tesla was a joint employer of Diaz, (3) Diaz was subject to a hostile work environment caused by a supervisor, (4) Diaz was subject to a hostile work environment caused by a non-immediate supervisor or co-worker, (5) Tesla committed a civil rights violation in a contractual relationship, (6) Tesla failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent Diaz from being subject to racial harassment, and (7) Tesla negligently supervised or negligently continued to employ Ramon Martinez and that action harmed Diaz. ... > The weight of the evidence is against Tesla's minimization of Diaz's emotional and psychological harm. Diaz testified about the severe consequences he experienced during his time at the factory. See supra Background, Section II.E. Jones similarly testified about the effects on her father. Id. And his psychological expert confirmed all of this, including by performing psychological evaluations to determine whether Diaz was “overreporting” his symptoms. Id. The jury, in short, had ample basis to believe Diaz's testimony that he was severely emotionally harmed. Given that two different jury trials found Diaz's claims valid, what should the law be to prevent this level of hostile workplace environment? If $3 million in punitive damages too large, and you think it a smaller one is more reasonable, how much is enough to deter Telsa from having a hostile work environment in the future?