Tesla ordered to pay worker $3M-plus over racist treatment Tesla is being ordered to pay a former employee at least $3 million to settle a racial discrimination lawsuit at its assembly plant in Fremont, California – just a fifth of the amount the judge offered him in 2021. Owen Diaz, a Black former contract employee at the Fremont plant, was awarded [PDF] $3 million (£2.4 million) in …
It's the only punishment that matters to a company the size of Tesla.
Also I dunno if I'd call it *easy* money. I mean, if you get to the point where you're being awarded millions in damages you've probably had your personal safety threatened, been psychologically abused, and had your career and earning potential artificially limited.
This post has been deleted by its author
"It does not seem right."
On the surface without seeing any of the evidence4 in the case, I would initially react the same way.
Cali-FORN-You is a hostile environment for business in general these days, and Fremont (between San Jose and Oakland) is no exception I'm sure, but if the case WAS legit, then whatever was awarded was done to punish actual violations, including legal costs in litigating it.
So yeah, I suspect a LOT of these cases are nuisance claims from disgruntled employees looking to screw over the former boss. But if bad actors actually DID act like racists etc, and the corporation had inadequate (or no) response to legit claims, it's on the company, not the plaintiff.
What If instead of cash, the company was instead on the line for mental health needs.
All your mental health bills get invoiced to their accounting department to be paid immediately.
Money is the middle man. Let's skip the middleman.
If reimbursed directly with what was damaged, mental health and emotional support, it closes the temptation for organized abuse of compensation mechanisms
Would you also apply this to other compensation situations?
Suppose you suffered an injury at work which left the you severely disabled and unable to work for the rest of your life? You might say the company should pay an annual income. But what happens if the company goes out of business? You would still be unable to work but the income would have gone forever.
The purpose of a lump sum is to future-proof the compensation.
Of course, in the example you suggest, it might work as expected until someone finds a health care professional willing to act as a middleman.
What If instead of cash, the company was instead on the line for mental health needs.
All your mental health bills get invoiced to their accounting department to be paid immediately.
We have received your expense report of April 3rd. We will need to see receipts from the providers along with a signed statement from the care provider that you did in fact discuss mental health issues related to this company's previous actions. Please submit this through the web portal, you know that one that someone wrote in 2003 which has a broken script nobody is ever going to fix and a 60 kB upload size limit. Remember that all expenses must be submitted within seven days of the service being provided. We will analyze your claim at our earliest convenience.
How is this supposed to help over the company simply giving them the money to pay for this stuff? It certainly is worse for the victim, but the company also incurs the cost of maintaining this service which adds complexity over being fined and having to pay that fine. I'm sure some companies would accept the trade, but those companies are also going to be the ones who find a way not to provide very much. They're the kind of companies who would quibble which expenses are about mental health and which ones aren't, and I don't have anything approaching a list.
In addition to all that, the penalties assessed in a trial like this aren't just for mental health expenses, but also a punishment for breaking the law in the first place. If you're worried about people pursuing incorrect actions to get money, I'm not sure how often it happens, but I can accept the logic that it could. The solution to that would appear to be to give the victim some amount for their suffering, then assess a punishment fine that doesn't get sent to the victim. You still have to do that or a company won't stop the behavior.
Um, no:
"In a civil case, a plaintiff can request an award of punitive damages. Unlike compensatory damages, which compensate plaintiffs for their concrete losses, punitive damages seek to punish defendants for their egregious conduct and to deter defendants and others from engaging in similar behavior." (from https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/punitive-damages/)
Besides, you can't throw a corporation in jail, sentence it to capital punishment, etc. (their execs? yes, but not the corporation itself.)
It’s terrible that the first trial resulted in a $100M+ payout. That creates the wrong incentives for employees and their lawyers to scheme and blackmail companies. If you want a meaningful way to punish a large corporation then issue a large fine and a smaller more reasonable settlement to the individual.
The guy could have walked away with $15 million, free and clear. But I guess the number that the first trial initially came up with turned his head, and he had to go for more. Now he'll have to "make do" with $3 million. I hope there aren't any more levels of appeal, or he might end up with nothing. Feel bad for the guy experiencing racism at work, but he really needs to learn to quit while he's ahead.
Why turn down the 15M (a very decent amount of money that would be massively life changing for most people) for a gamble on getting a larger amount in "damages lottery"? .. and obviously in this case the gamble failed badly.
Was this some bad advice from the legal team? .. Or just someone swept away by seeing some of the massive damages awards that do occur?
I would have happily pocketed the 15M and family & I could spend rest of our lives living on that & pursuing our interests instead of work grind to pay the bills.
"had Tesla been allowed to introduce new evidence as part of the second trial, "the verdict would've been zero [in my opinion]."
Piss off Musk. If there was actual new evidence that might materially affect the outcome, the judge would have allowed it to be entered. If you got it, then appeal the decision and call for yet another new trial and present said evidence. Put up or shut up.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
