[eesmith]

Perhaps you can explain the relevancy of your comment?

Your comment suggests you think financial payment to an HN user with hurt feelings due to another user "not thinking much of his comment" is either good or justified.

I find that hard to believe.

On the other hand, decades ago the US decided that it's neither good nor justified to have a hostile work environment - something I agree with - and put laws and systems into place to enforce that belief.

That's what the lawsuit is about.

Yet I also find it hard to believe you support a hostile work environment.

That makes your comment seen like neither here nor there.

[misslibby]

Your argument was that "so and so did break the law". I answered that just because something is a law, it isn't good or correct. If you don't see the relevancy, I don't know what else to tell you.

I don't think people should pay other users because of their comments. On the contrary, my argument was that they shouldn't have to pay.

As for hostile work environments, my opinion is that people should simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment. I don't think governments should interfere with how companies conduct their business.

I even think racism should be legal. Don't get me wrong - I don't like racism. But the government shouldn't be allowed to tell people who they have to like or dislike. If somebody doesn't want to work with somebody else because they don't like their nose or whatever, it should be in their rights to refuse to work with them. In general, people should be allowed to do with their money as they please, so also to pay for work who they want.

One thing I heard is that the guy in question here even tried to get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad. Not sure if that is true, though.

[eesmith]

It would be easier if you simply wrote "we need to get rid of all employee rights laws."

> Your argument was that

No, my argument was that the two situations are not meaningfully comparable. I then explained why.

Even if the law isn't good or correct, the two situations are still not meaningfully comparable, because the awarded damages requires that the law exist.

> simply quit their jobs if they are unhappy with their work environment

Ahh, sounds like a libertarian in favor of the Lochner era. I strongly disagree with what I see as a naive belief in the freedom of contract.

As you correctly point out, it means allowing racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, with people like Oncale quitting his job with Sundowner because "I felt that if I didn't leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex."

That's the freedom of contract you want.

Those were not good times to be an lowly employee. I suppose they were great times to be a manager and business owner, if you didn't care much about others.

> get a relative a position at Tesla, which seems odd if he thought the work environment was so bad

While I haven't read much about the case, it's clear you've read far less. From the judge's opinion in the first trial, at https://casetext.com/case/diaz-v-tesla-inc-4 :

] After several months at Tesla, Diaz recommended that his son (and former plaintiff) Demetric Di-Az come to work at the Tesla facility. See, e.g., Tr. at 503:8-16. He testified that he “did believe he would be in a different location” so the situation might be different for him. Id. at 503:11-19. He said that he could not recall whether he warned Di-Az about the racial harassment. Id. at 504:5-11. At one point, Diaz witnessed a white supervisor yell at Demetric that, “I can't stand all you [fucking] [N-words].” Id. at 419:18-24. Diaz said that it “broke” him. Id. at 420:1. He testified that, if he had to do it over again, he would not have recommended that Demetric work there, calling it his “biggest mistake.” Id. at 420:2-5.

Note that his son was a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. The opinion doesn't say why it was dismissed, but the other co-plaintiff settled the case with Telsa.

[misslibby]

Of course the situations are comparable. Your only explanation was that there is a law for the one situation but (allegedly) not the other. Which probably isn't even true, as you may be able to sue people over insults (ianal).

> As you correctly point out, it means allowing racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace, with people like Oncale quitting his job with Sundowner because "I felt that if I didn't leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex.

Why would you want to continue working for somebody who wants to force you to have sex?

>Those were not good times to be an lowly employee. I suppose they were great times to be a manager and business owner, if you didn't care much about others.

In a good economy, you can find another job. In a bad economy, as socialism is notorious to bring about, you can't. So congrats, you are entitled to keep your job with the boss who wants to rape you.

> While I haven't read much about the case, it's clear you've read far less

"He believed he would be in another location" - so he didn't believe Tesla was racist at heart?