Without commenting on the story or the case itself, I have to say that from a purely journalistic perspective, it is very weird to be calling out the race(s) of people related to a story when it’s not central or key to the reporting. The race of Workman seems to bear no relation to the story itself, so why the callout?
in a story about racism you think the person's race bear no relation to the story itself?
Capers Workman is (was) a VP, not the worker who made the racism claim. Though I think it is still fine to include her race, as it adds context to the statements she made.
Workman claimed to have left Tesla in a better position than when she'd joined, which while vague, doesn't to me suggest that she left because it was an inherently racist environment.
I imagine the relation and relevance are apparent from the title of the article and submission:
"Tesla ordered to pay more than $3M to former worker in racism suit"
She seems to have been involved in the suit insofar as she claimed she was in the courtroom during the trial, but beyond that, it's not clear to me why her race is worth specifically remarking upon.
I didn't understand 'callout'. "a statement drawing critical attention to someone's unacceptable actions or behaviour."
You feel stating the race of the VP was a statement drawing critical attention to someone's unacceptable actions or behaviour?
1. To specify, especially in detail.
2. To order into service; to summon into service.
3. To yell out; to vocalize audibly; announce.
Said another way, I don’t understand why it’s worth specifying the race of Workman, since it seems to bear no relation to the story.