Do you think that Tesla should continue to pay someone who is actively and deliberately tarnishing their image, without giving them a chance to make things right (if they were ever wrong to begin with)?
I don't know why it is up to Tesla to keep an employee trying to tarnish their image.
There's a difference between tarnishing an image and drawing attention to illegal behaviour. In particular, the intent of the second can be done with the intention of improving the firm by getting it to stop the illegal behaviour. The managers may not see it that way, but corporations are not their managers and are not their shareholders.
If I've learned one thing about lawyers it's that if you really want to sue, you can always find a lawyer willing to do it.
Technically (and tangentally), they had the "right" from the moment she signed her contract. That's what at-will means - Tesla can fire an employee with no reason whatsoever should it wish. In theory, that power is balanced against an employee's right to quit without notice; but the balance of power is not really with the employee in that change.
> she had the chance to do that internally
Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, it sounds like she tried to do exactly that - resolve it internally - and it didn't work out: her allegations were classified as "unfounded." This means her options for resolving the issue internally were practically exhausted.
That is not true at all.
> in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason [...], and without warning.
But that's now between the lawyers and the courts.
This crosses the line between calling out a problem and directly attacking a brand.
I'd be interested in seeing how her allegations hold up in court but the way the Guardian presents her case makes this less about the alleged problems and more about herself vs Tesla. Even if she hadn't known this would result in her being fired, the Guardian must have seen it coming a mile away.
Well, according to both sides of the story, they did an internal investigation - their chance to make things right in her eyes - and classified the accusations as unfounded.
Does that make her right? I don't know. Does that make her a malicious liar? I don't know that either. Did it leave her with avenues other than going public and/or suing the company if she still believes she was wronged? Not in this day and age (though going public before talking to a lawyer is not always in your best interest, particularly when it comes to something related to law, and not just poor customer service).
An employer-employee relationship is ultimately built on trust (enshrined in a contract but still based on mutual assumptions of good faith). There's nothing strictly wrong with airing your dirty laundry in public but at that point you're terminating the relationship. The only question left at that point is whether there are any remaining obligations but thinking you can just carry on as usual is absurd.
I'm not even arguing about the emotions involved. Tesla may have betrayed her trust if her allegations are true, but she definitely betrayed the company's trust by actively dragging this into the headlines.