I would love to see proof of this, if it’s so rampant where is the hard evidence? He said she said isn’t all that convincing coming from fired employees
The proof of this is that even Tesla's own PR after both the individual racial discrimination jury trial it lost and the large racial discrimination action filed by the California DFEH has focussed on how the former was about 2015-2016 and the latter 2015-2019 and claiming it had gotten better and faced no current accusations.
The standard for civil cases is low compared to a criminal trial where someone has to present a case of intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Suggesting that there's orders from the company top to engage in racism is absurd and requires evidence. So far, as far as we are aware, it's a game of he-said-she-said between employees/supervisors. Tesla cannot blanket deny that the harassment didn't happen, but they can deny giving any such instruction to promote it. The court determined that regardless of the employees ultimately responsible for the harassment, Tesla was on the hook for paying them for the behavior. "Not doing enough" is a completely subjective measure.
The suggestion is not that Tesla promotes racism, but that they turn a blind eye to it and ignores rampant occurrence of it. Even firing the people who complain.
> The standard for civil cases is low compared to a criminal trial where someone has to present a case of intent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Criminal trials don't need to prove intent at all unless it happens to be an intent crime, and in any case commercial racism isn't a crime so...I’m not sure why were are bringing up criminal burdens of proof at all. The civil standard is preponderance of the evidence, that is what is more likely than not true based on the evidence presented.
> Suggesting that there's orders from the company top to engage in racism is absurd and requires evidence.
“standard operating procedure” here is a synonym of “routine practice” not “orders from the company too”; the only thing alleged about the “company top” is that “done little to nothing to reasonably prevent or stop this toxic behavior and work environment”.
And, yes lawsuits require evidence and if this isn't dropped or settled before trial, there will be evidence presented and a ruling on the evidence just as the case with the other race discrimination case which Tesla lost, based on the evidence.
> Tesla cannot blanket deny that the harassment didn't happen, but they can deny giving any such instruction to promote it.
Then Tesla is in trouble, since they are legally responsible for preventing racial harassment and other forms of race discrimination from happening in the workplace, not just for not commanding it.
> The court determined that regardless of the employees ultimately responsible for the harassment, Tesla was on the hook for paying them for the behavior.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The court hasn't determined anything, the lawsuit was just filed. And while it is true that there is some liability for harassment by any coworker, it does very much depend on the working context and who the employees doing the harassment are what the standards are, and Tesla's exposure is highest when (as in the newly filed lawsuit) the harassment and discrimination are by supervisors and managers to their subordinates.
"Tesla's treatment of Black employees was previously highlighted in a federal lawsuit filed by former employee Owen Diaz, who was awarded $137 million by a jury. After the jury trial, a federal judge rejected Tesla's claim that it is not liable for the "disturbing" racist abuse Diaz suffered but reduced the award to $15 million."
More convincing when multiple employees are giving similar account. Also given that these complaints have happened over a longer time, and Tesla has had many problems with employees. When Tesla has some many problems one cannot just keep blaming employees, because somehow Elon Musk is an infallible hero.
Elon Musk is an extremely smart and talented person, but that does not guarantee that his moral compass is in working order.
While loudly talking about the importance of free speech, he quickly fired employees criticizing his use of social media. "Do as I say, not as I do", in other words. He fired his long term assistant for simply asking for a raise after 12 years. She had gone above and beyond. He berated his wife constantly for not living up to his standards and demands. She said: "I am not your employee" to which he replied: "If you were I would have fired you!"
Elons Musk despite his brilliance obviously has issues with how he treats people. That Tesla has the problems described is sadly quite plausible given his past behavior in some many different contexts.
His family became wealthy during apartheid, they were beneficiaries of state sponsored racism, I'd say he is at least indifferent to it as long as he is not suffering any consequences.
It's a logical leap to suggest that indirectly benefitting from something means one is indifferent to that thing. We're all beneficiaries of child labour in the third world; it doesn't mean we're all indifferent to it. Most of us at least disapprove.
Errol Musk claimed to the New York Times that he belonged to the anti-apartheid Progressive Party at the time. Elon Musk said in his biography that he did not want to partake in South Africa's mandatory military service because it would have forced him to participate in the apartheid regime.[1]
I understand that this an emotionally charged issue, and I would never expect the wider public to behave differently, but I'd at least expect this community to engage in more critical thinking -- to not make logical leaps, and to be honest about the facts at hand. We're not going to reverse the world's social progress because the nerds on Hacker News decided to pause for thought.
> Elon Musk said in his biography that he did not want to partake in South Africa's mandatory military service
The children of rich people deciding they don't want to participate in the draft isn't a moral stand. It's not a unique thing, nor a condemnation of the country.
There are multiple lawsuits where Tesla has had similar accusations and the judgement trend has been consistently against their favor.
I see a similar trend with Facebook and the like but for different accusations in the EU and elsewhere. These fines are not enough. When awarding them, the company's stock value and net profits should be taken into consideration and inaction or lack of change after the lawsuit should be considered contempt of the court where the CEO is held criminally liable.
We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work settings.
Since it's Tesla, it garners headlines, and that helps with the lawsuits.
Lawsuits at other blue collar workplaces are boring, so they don't make headlines, don't threaten the companies involved, and go nowhere.
It seems Tesla is being targeted for monetary reasons here. Yes the underlying (if true) behavior is bad too. But the number of lawsuits should not be taken to conclude that Tesla has an especially outsized internal problem. Rather, it has an outsized spotlight.
None of this is to defend rude behavior in any workplace. But I doubt Tesla is particularly special except for the headlines aspect, which increases the potential viability and thus the number of lawsuits.
Of course that means it would behoove them to do more to address any behavior issues. I have no reason to think they are interested in perpetuating such behavior.
> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work settings.
From the article:
"Tesla's treatment of Black employees was previously highlighted in a federal lawsuit filed by former employee Owen Diaz, who was awarded $137 million by a jury. After the jury trial, a federal judge rejected Tesla's claim that it is not liable for the "disturbing" racist abuse Diaz suffered but reduced the award to $15 million."
Racism isn't just "rude". It's morally reprehensible and damaging across many dimensions for individuals and society at large. Even moreso at work, where such attitudes are irrelevant and have no place in furthering the business objectives.
> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work settings.
If it's "sadly routine" and also unlawful then the people are not "cashing in" but are using the legal system to enforce their rights and ensure that companies are held to account for unlawful conduct. Saying that Tesla doesn't have an especially outsized problem is entirely beside the point. It's not a valid defense to say "sure my activities were unlawful but they weren't much more unlawful than other people - you're just picking on me because I'm high profile."
I don't know whether or not what they did was in fact unlawful, but deciding that is the whole point of the lawsuit.
> Yes the underlying (if true) behavior is bad too.
Not just bad, but illegal.
If Tesla is losing court cases — which they are — then that’s because the judge and jury believe based on the evidence presented and argued that Tesla, as a company, was at fault.
If it’s happened, they SHOULD be sued. No ifs ands or buts about it.
> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits
No, we don’t need to consider that possibility. Judges and juries, who have actually seen the evidence (moreso than you or me), have repeatedly considered that possibility and repudiated it.
Keep in mind Tesla has some of the absolute best legal representation money and reputation can buy. If the claimants’ stories had any exploitable openings for doubt, Tesla’s lawyers would have absolutely (and skillfully) used them to deflect culpability. The fact they are still losing says something.
>>If Tesla is losing court cases — which they are — then that’s because the judge and jury believe based on the evidence presented and argued that Tesla, as a company, was at fault.
>>Even after the case has been litigated, we still do not know what exactly Tesla could have done to avoid the $137 million judgment (it may be reduced on appeal). Employees did in fact get in trouble for using the n-word and drawing racist cartoons. In retrospect, they probably would’ve been safer if they just fired everyone who Diaz or Di-az accused of racism, at least the non-blacks, but there’s no guarantee that would’ve worked either, as they were in an industry that required them to rely on workers who hadn’t yet internalized elite ways of thinking about race. If they had fired black people for using the n-word too, would that have helped or hurt them in trying to avoid a lawsuit? It’s difficult to say, and that’s sort of the point.
>>For next time, there’s little Tesla can do but go all in on diversity training, be as enthusiastic as possible in adopting whatever next race fad comes out of academia, and hope that the next jury isn’t as woke as the one they got this time. Until anti-discrimination laws are rolled back, or come to be based on clear and objective standards, there is no other way.
It’s simplistic to just trust the justice system in this case. Since short sellers pushing false narratives have drummed up a lot of hate, Tesla sometimes has to “take the hit” as Elon put it. Judges and juries have the power, not lawyers. And they are not perfect and neutral, even though in a naively idealistic notion they are supposed to be.
Also your points were well answered by a different commenter but instead of discussing the good, interesting points, someone just downvoted. This is how it goes with Tesla. It’s some kind of weird thing that happens with companies that make products perceived as luxury, I guess, but in this case aided by short seller media campaigns.
> short sellers pushing false narratives have drummed up a lot of hate
I haven't really seen evidence of false narratives. They definately push negative news.
> Tesla sometimes has to “take the hit” as Elon put it.
Wait, you dismiss what short sellers say because of economic incentives but don't consider that Elon Musk could be putting out a false narrative? Because his entire personal net worth wouldn't collapse to zero if Tesla tanks?
At any rate, a jury trial is as good as you can get to determine truth. After all, highly paid people on both sides present as powerful an argument as they can to twelve disinterested people. How better to figure out what's true?
Indeed, and definately some bandwagoning involved. If one group gets an outsized settlement, then others are inspired to do dirt digging to do the same. Alleging pervasive racism is a tall order, and the evidence presented thus far amounts to he-said-she-said and between workers and some supervisors as far as we're aware of and not some leadership thing to go as far to say "standard operating procedure".
They've sued Fisker, Rivian, Zoox, Xiaopeng, and more. Just Google "tesla lawsuit trade secret". Maybe some of those cases were legitimate, but were all of them? I doubt it. They seem to sue anybody who goes to a competitor, unless that person has a very low profile.
Thanks for the reply; now that you mention those keywords I do recall having heard of some of these. I guess "frivolous" is in the eye of the beholder here.
That is quite a spectacular claim. I would assume you have equally solid evidence to suggest that people routinely make up lawsuits like this?
Just because a case is not proven, does not mean a lawsuit is made up. Most legal systems have innocent until proven guilty and a high standard of proof. Many things which happen cannot always be proven with sufficient amount of evidence even if they happened. A classic case is rape, where it is often hard to produce evidence.
That an individual engage in a lawsuite that is made up can make sense. But when you got multiple people with the same kinds of complaints I think the probability of it being made up drops considerably.
> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work settings.
Painting racialized minorities as "lowlifes" because they've got the audacity to speak out about pervasive mistreatment is the kind of hot take I'd expect to see in the comments of Fox News.
> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits on stuff that is sadly routine in many blue collar work setting
Calling minority workers “lowlifes” is classy, and even
if illegal race discrimination is pervasive in many blue collar work settings, so what? “Everyone employer does it” isn't a justification, just a reason that imposing consequences to break the practice is more urgent.
> His supervisor, identified as defendant Clinton Doe, "repeatedly made racially discriminatory comments to Gonsalves, stating that Gonsalves 'wasn't like most black people,' that he 'didn't act ghetto,' and further called him a 'zebra' because he was 'neither black nor white.'"
this is inspirational as I never thought about sanctioning these kind of derogatory comments, new business model! will be watching how this one goes.
As long as companies look after brand names (tesla, faceook,) keep beeing seen as a “better place to work” the number of applicants will keep rising. This leads to the fact that people will not speak up or question bad behavior.
I have repeatedly seen this where companies and/manager thought they can do whatever they want (discrimination in many forms) because everyone wants to work for them.
If anyone has a solution for this imbalance I am glad to hear it.
It kind of started when Elon said that he is going to vote with the republicans - full disclouse, I do not like Elon, he crashed bitcoin and crypto many times.
55 comments
[ 2.1 ms ] story [ 99.9 ms ] threadI guess it should be at least halfway convincing to you then.
Criminal trials don't need to prove intent at all unless it happens to be an intent crime, and in any case commercial racism isn't a crime so...I’m not sure why were are bringing up criminal burdens of proof at all. The civil standard is preponderance of the evidence, that is what is more likely than not true based on the evidence presented.
> Suggesting that there's orders from the company top to engage in racism is absurd and requires evidence.
“standard operating procedure” here is a synonym of “routine practice” not “orders from the company too”; the only thing alleged about the “company top” is that “done little to nothing to reasonably prevent or stop this toxic behavior and work environment”.
And, yes lawsuits require evidence and if this isn't dropped or settled before trial, there will be evidence presented and a ruling on the evidence just as the case with the other race discrimination case which Tesla lost, based on the evidence.
> Tesla cannot blanket deny that the harassment didn't happen, but they can deny giving any such instruction to promote it.
Then Tesla is in trouble, since they are legally responsible for preventing racial harassment and other forms of race discrimination from happening in the workplace, not just for not commanding it.
> The court determined that regardless of the employees ultimately responsible for the harassment, Tesla was on the hook for paying them for the behavior.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. The court hasn't determined anything, the lawsuit was just filed. And while it is true that there is some liability for harassment by any coworker, it does very much depend on the working context and who the employees doing the harassment are what the standards are, and Tesla's exposure is highest when (as in the newly filed lawsuit) the harassment and discrimination are by supervisors and managers to their subordinates.
"Tesla's treatment of Black employees was previously highlighted in a federal lawsuit filed by former employee Owen Diaz, who was awarded $137 million by a jury. After the jury trial, a federal judge rejected Tesla's claim that it is not liable for the "disturbing" racist abuse Diaz suffered but reduced the award to $15 million."
Elon Musk is an extremely smart and talented person, but that does not guarantee that his moral compass is in working order.
While loudly talking about the importance of free speech, he quickly fired employees criticizing his use of social media. "Do as I say, not as I do", in other words. He fired his long term assistant for simply asking for a raise after 12 years. She had gone above and beyond. He berated his wife constantly for not living up to his standards and demands. She said: "I am not your employee" to which he replied: "If you were I would have fired you!"
Elons Musk despite his brilliance obviously has issues with how he treats people. That Tesla has the problems described is sadly quite plausible given his past behavior in some many different contexts.
Errol Musk claimed to the New York Times that he belonged to the anti-apartheid Progressive Party at the time. Elon Musk said in his biography that he did not want to partake in South Africa's mandatory military service because it would have forced him to participate in the apartheid regime.[1]
I understand that this an emotionally charged issue, and I would never expect the wider public to behave differently, but I'd at least expect this community to engage in more critical thinking -- to not make logical leaps, and to be honest about the facts at hand. We're not going to reverse the world's social progress because the nerds on Hacker News decided to pause for thought.
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/world/africa/elon-musk-so...
The children of rich people deciding they don't want to participate in the draft isn't a moral stand. It's not a unique thing, nor a condemnation of the country.
I see a similar trend with Facebook and the like but for different accusations in the EU and elsewhere. These fines are not enough. When awarding them, the company's stock value and net profits should be taken into consideration and inaction or lack of change after the lawsuit should be considered contempt of the court where the CEO is held criminally liable.
Since it's Tesla, it garners headlines, and that helps with the lawsuits.
Lawsuits at other blue collar workplaces are boring, so they don't make headlines, don't threaten the companies involved, and go nowhere.
It seems Tesla is being targeted for monetary reasons here. Yes the underlying (if true) behavior is bad too. But the number of lawsuits should not be taken to conclude that Tesla has an especially outsized internal problem. Rather, it has an outsized spotlight.
None of this is to defend rude behavior in any workplace. But I doubt Tesla is particularly special except for the headlines aspect, which increases the potential viability and thus the number of lawsuits.
Of course that means it would behoove them to do more to address any behavior issues. I have no reason to think they are interested in perpetuating such behavior.
From the article:
"Tesla's treatment of Black employees was previously highlighted in a federal lawsuit filed by former employee Owen Diaz, who was awarded $137 million by a jury. After the jury trial, a federal judge rejected Tesla's claim that it is not liable for the "disturbing" racist abuse Diaz suffered but reduced the award to $15 million."
If it's "sadly routine" and also unlawful then the people are not "cashing in" but are using the legal system to enforce their rights and ensure that companies are held to account for unlawful conduct. Saying that Tesla doesn't have an especially outsized problem is entirely beside the point. It's not a valid defense to say "sure my activities were unlawful but they weren't much more unlawful than other people - you're just picking on me because I'm high profile."
I don't know whether or not what they did was in fact unlawful, but deciding that is the whole point of the lawsuit.
Not just bad, but illegal.
If Tesla is losing court cases — which they are — then that’s because the judge and jury believe based on the evidence presented and argued that Tesla, as a company, was at fault.
If it’s happened, they SHOULD be sued. No ifs ands or buts about it.
> We should at least consider the possibility this is just a bunch of lowlifes trying to cash in with lawsuits
No, we don’t need to consider that possibility. Judges and juries, who have actually seen the evidence (moreso than you or me), have repeatedly considered that possibility and repudiated it.
Keep in mind Tesla has some of the absolute best legal representation money and reputation can buy. If the claimants’ stories had any exploitable openings for doubt, Tesla’s lawyers would have absolutely (and skillfully) used them to deflect culpability. The fact they are still losing says something.
Or the law itself is impossible to comply with:
https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/wokeness-as-saddam-sta...
>>Even after the case has been litigated, we still do not know what exactly Tesla could have done to avoid the $137 million judgment (it may be reduced on appeal). Employees did in fact get in trouble for using the n-word and drawing racist cartoons. In retrospect, they probably would’ve been safer if they just fired everyone who Diaz or Di-az accused of racism, at least the non-blacks, but there’s no guarantee that would’ve worked either, as they were in an industry that required them to rely on workers who hadn’t yet internalized elite ways of thinking about race. If they had fired black people for using the n-word too, would that have helped or hurt them in trying to avoid a lawsuit? It’s difficult to say, and that’s sort of the point.
>>For next time, there’s little Tesla can do but go all in on diversity training, be as enthusiastic as possible in adopting whatever next race fad comes out of academia, and hope that the next jury isn’t as woke as the one they got this time. Until anti-discrimination laws are rolled back, or come to be based on clear and objective standards, there is no other way.
But as it happens, Ford, along with probably every one large American company, has been targeted numerous times by discrimination lawsuits:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ford+discrimination+lawsuit&...
Also your points were well answered by a different commenter but instead of discussing the good, interesting points, someone just downvoted. This is how it goes with Tesla. It’s some kind of weird thing that happens with companies that make products perceived as luxury, I guess, but in this case aided by short seller media campaigns.
I haven't really seen evidence of false narratives. They definately push negative news.
> Tesla sometimes has to “take the hit” as Elon put it.
Wait, you dismiss what short sellers say because of economic incentives but don't consider that Elon Musk could be putting out a false narrative? Because his entire personal net worth wouldn't collapse to zero if Tesla tanks?
At any rate, a jury trial is as good as you can get to determine truth. After all, highly paid people on both sides present as powerful an argument as they can to twelve disinterested people. How better to figure out what's true?
Just because a case is not proven, does not mean a lawsuit is made up. Most legal systems have innocent until proven guilty and a high standard of proof. Many things which happen cannot always be proven with sufficient amount of evidence even if they happened. A classic case is rape, where it is often hard to produce evidence.
That an individual engage in a lawsuite that is made up can make sense. But when you got multiple people with the same kinds of complaints I think the probability of it being made up drops considerably.
Painting racialized minorities as "lowlifes" because they've got the audacity to speak out about pervasive mistreatment is the kind of hot take I'd expect to see in the comments of Fox News.
Calling minority workers “lowlifes” is classy, and even if illegal race discrimination is pervasive in many blue collar work settings, so what? “Everyone employer does it” isn't a justification, just a reason that imposing consequences to break the practice is more urgent.
this is inspirational as I never thought about sanctioning these kind of derogatory comments, new business model! will be watching how this one goes.
I have repeatedly seen this where companies and/manager thought they can do whatever they want (discrimination in many forms) because everyone wants to work for them.
If anyone has a solution for this imbalance I am glad to hear it.