|
|
|
|
|
|
by misslibby
1179 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
> 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.