>His supervisors and Tesla's broader management structure did little or nothing to respond. And supervisors even joined in on the abuse, one going so far as to threaten Diaz and draw a racist caricature near his workstation.
Do the supervisors not have any kind of personal liability in these cases?
Yeah, this is very strange to me. There was a case involving Cleveland Clinic where an Asian nurse's coworkers and supervisor were openly racist to her, and the case was straight up dismissed.
> Plaintiff alleges that younger nurses called her an “oldbie” or “old bitch” and referred to rice she ate as “lice.” (Lee Dep. R. #33-4 at 170) She asserts that one nurse stated, “you Chinese people eat anything that crawls and walks” and also stated that Plaintiff does not have “chinky eyes” even though she is Chinese. (Id.) In December 2013, Plaintiff reported the incident to a different supervisor, Debbie Brosovich (“Brosovich”), who responded that she was “overreacting” and being “sensitive.”
> Increased surveillance and discipline, whether warranted or not, do not constitute a material adverse change in the terms of employment in the discrimination context because those actions do not “constitute[ ] a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381, 402 (6th Cir. 2008).
So... you can actually have a policy that members of a protected class are subject to additional surveillance and discipline without cause, so long as you don't fire them or take away their benefits?
You can not be charged with a hate crime unless there is an underlying criminal offense in America. The first amendment gives you the right to say racist things.
Do the supervisors not have any kind of personal liability in these cases?