$137M very obviously incentivates people to engage into frivolous litigation.
Only a fraction of that money should be awarded to the victim. The rest could as well go to charity, or our public health system, etc.
Nobody wants to touch this story with a comment in 3 hours? I wonder why.
I'll go ahead and say that if no important detail is left out of the story, 137 millions being awarded for verbal abuse during 1 year of employment is insane and clearly shows why the company has mandatory arbitration agreements.
I have a plan: You and me both get hired there, then you yell racist stuff at me, then I sue the company, then we split the $137M.
edit: we can switch roles if you prefer
Statement by Tesla, including relevant claims not in the CNBC article.
- Mr. Diaz never worked for Tesla. He was a contract employee who worked for Citistaff.
- Mr. Diaz worked as an elevator operator at the Fremont factory for nine months, from June 2015 to March 2016.
- In addition to Mr. Diaz, three other witnesses (all non-Tesla contract employees) testified at trial that they regularly heard racial slurs (including the n-word) on the Fremont factory floor. While they all agreed that the use of the n-word was not appropriate in the workplace, they also agreed that most of the time they thought the language was used in a “friendly” manner and usually by African-American colleagues. They also told the jury about racist graffiti in the bathrooms, which was removed by our janitorial staff;
- There was no witness testimony or other evidence that anyone ever heard the n-word used toward Mr. Diaz.
- Mr. Diaz made written complaints to his non-Tesla supervisors. Those were well-documented in the nine months he worked at our factory. But he didn’t make any complaints about the n-word until after he was not hired full-time by Tesla – and after he hired an attorney.
- The three times that Mr. Diaz did complain about harassment, Tesla stepped in and made sure responsive and timely action was taken by the staffing agencies: two contractors were fired and one was suspended (who had drawn a racially offensive cartoon). Mr. Diaz himself testified that he was “very satisfied” with the results of one of the investigations, and he agreed that there was follow-up on each of his complaints.
- Even though Mr. Diaz now complains about racial harassment at Fremont, at the time he said he was being harassed, he recommended to his son and daughter – while they were all living together in the same home – that they work at Tesla with him.
For me this is the most shocking:
" the case was only able to move forward because Diaz had not signed one of Tesla’s mandatory arbitration agreements which the company uses to force employees to resolve disputes without a public trial"
I think this is something very US-specific that is it legal to have an agreement that someone gives up basic citizen right like going to court and the right to have a public trial.
In most countries something like this is just an abusive clause in the contract and is invalid automatically.
Previously, a black employee went through mandatory arbitration with Tesla, and the arbiter found it was ok for white employees to call black employees the n-word because it's used in rap music. Some may feel the $137M award to be a lot, but Tesla has been getting away with inaction for years. Maybe that will actually make them perk up and do something.
> an arbitrator hired by Tesla to resolve the case in a series of closed-door hearings agreed the slurs weren't racist. Rather, they were "consistent with lyrics and images commonly found in rap songs and freestyle rap competitions," retired Marin County Judge Lynn Duryee wrote in a decision reviewed by Protocol. In a footnote, Duryee cited lyrics on genius.com for a song by Insanity, a little-known Canadian rapper.
> colleagues used epithets to denigrate him and other Black workers, told him to "go back to Africa"
Which is a bit ironic considering Musk himself was born in South Africa.
It's strange - considering what I've heard about lottery winners, that 137 million will probably ruin that guys life. Most people can't survive something like that.
Most people saying that 137 is too much get responded with "this the only way Tesla can learn". Sure, I agree with that, but is 100% of the fine being awarded to the victim? That doesn't look right, it makes it a honeypot (incentive) for future trials. Even one tenth of that would be too high for a work issue that lasted one 1 year, why make the victim rich (and his decendants)? Compensation doesn't mean windfall/lottery.
The families of those wrongfully killed by police get a lot less then that, $137M is just nuts.
Anyone here know the law well?
Would Tesla be open to lawsuits if they fired African-American colleagues who used racial slurs (including the n- word) in a "friendly" manner?
From the article:
“In addition to Mr. Diaz, three other witnesses (all non-Tesla contract employees) testified at trial that they regularly heard racial slurs (including the n-word) on the Fremont factory floor. While they all agreed that the use of the n-word was not appropriate in the workplace, they also agreed that most of the time they thought the language was used in a ‘friendly’ manner and usually by African-American colleagues.”
What a crock...he was probably looking to get $100k
Americans and their silly "justice system".
$137M, what a joke. I'm sure he'd been able to earn at least 2x that amount had he continued his employment.
I am sure that the abuse stopped him from rising to the top - a key requirement for an elevator operator.
Sadly, his victory will no doubt lead to fewer low paid roles in big firms as CEOs will not like it that even the littlest man or woman can hold behemoths to account: a big motivator for automation.
Honest question: tossing morals and ethics aside, how long will it be before the employees of the large corporations actively look for ways to sue them to get as much money in compensations as possible? After all, even if such actions would get you blacklisted by many corporations, regardless of whether you were in the right ethically to take them to court vs just nitpicking, $137M feels like enough money to never have to work again. Seems like that would be a measured risk that some people could be willing to take.
Personally, if i found my working conditions inadequate, i'd just leave and look for different opportunities because to a relatively low paid people like myself getting on any sort of a blacklist or getting negative publicity would be career ending, i probably could not afford court expenses or the mental toll something like that would take, and just generally am not a person who'd want to sue others and stir trouble (like many people, i'd assume), but what other reasons are there for people to look at employment and lawsuits as an unethical "get rich quick" scheme?
Disclaimer: don't assume that i condone any of the above or would like to see a world in which abusive behaviour cannot rightfully be settled in court. However, I'm curious about the mechanisms in place to prevent the exploitation of the court system. This is especially relevant because of patent trolling and insurance fraud in certain countries.
> faced a hostile work environment in which, he told the court, colleagues used epithets to denigrate him and other Black workers, told him to “go back to Africa” and left racist graffiti in the restrooms and a racist drawing in his workspace.
How do you even prove such a thing? Especially 5 years after you have left the place. And how does it not become a case of he said, she said?