> Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an anti-discrimination course.
This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017.
> Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action."
This sounds bad to me. Discrimination complaints are complicated and dangerous and should be handled by experts--which the vast majority of HR staff are not. The idea of a "spot training session" sounds like the sort of thing that could be easily misinterpreted by any of the parties as a "make this go away" conversation.
> We have also created a dedicated team focused exclusively on investigating workplace concerns, recommending corrective actions and assisting managers with implementing those actions.
This is more like it but the timing is vague--by this wording, this could have happened at any point, including yesterday.
> Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified...
Oh jeez, please don't share the details of an internal employee matter that is subject to litigation...
- (me, but also Tesla's general counsel, probably)
> Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it is as close to zero as possible.
Ok, but you are not getting sued for just random "bad conduct," you're getting sued for a failing to properly handle a specific (but relatively common, sadly) type of bad conduct.
> There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all.
Yes, this is how class action lawsuits work.
> The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.
Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them.
> The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle.
Well yes, you did say it was a trial lawyer.
Overall I think this letter is not great for Tesla. It seems like the sort of thing that will be useful for feeding the current race-based culture war in the U.S., but doesn't make Tesla look serious about preventing racist and discriminatory behavior among its workforce. Fewer words and more contrition would probably have been better.
>> Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an anti-discrimination course
> This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017
Not in the slightest. It might as well say "drum circle", since there's no evidence that either are effective. The key is that there are supposed to be metrics and investigative procedures and protections for complaints, not some re-education mumbo jumbo.
I would imagine it'd be limited to companies large enough to have not only a dedicated HR staff or possibly even a particularly competent HR staff. There'd be countless companies in any country without any formalised course, let alone a specific one.
I think we agree. My point is that putting people through a course like that is actually not much evidence that Tesla takes workplace discrimination seriously.
>> The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.
>Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them.
It absolutely does matter when the lawsuit claims that the plaintiff was fired.
This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017.
> Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action."
This sounds bad to me. Discrimination complaints are complicated and dangerous and should be handled by experts--which the vast majority of HR staff are not. The idea of a "spot training session" sounds like the sort of thing that could be easily misinterpreted by any of the parties as a "make this go away" conversation.
> We have also created a dedicated team focused exclusively on investigating workplace concerns, recommending corrective actions and assisting managers with implementing those actions.
This is more like it but the timing is vague--by this wording, this could have happened at any point, including yesterday.
> Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified...
Oh jeez, please don't share the details of an internal employee matter that is subject to litigation...
- (me, but also Tesla's general counsel, probably)
> Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it is as close to zero as possible.
Ok, but you are not getting sued for just random "bad conduct," you're getting sued for a failing to properly handle a specific (but relatively common, sadly) type of bad conduct.
> There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all.
Yes, this is how class action lawsuits work.
> The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.
Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them.
> The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle.
Well yes, you did say it was a trial lawyer.
Overall I think this letter is not great for Tesla. It seems like the sort of thing that will be useful for feeding the current race-based culture war in the U.S., but doesn't make Tesla look serious about preventing racist and discriminatory behavior among its workforce. Fewer words and more contrition would probably have been better.