Federal Appeals Court Divided in Favor of Elon Musk Over 2018 Tweet Concerning Tesla Employee Stock Options

https://icaro.icaromediagroup.com/system/images/photos/16384627/original/open-uri20241029-17-18f1zl7?1730245707
ICARO Media Group
Politics
29/10/2024 23h46

### Divided Federal Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Elon Musk Over 2018 Tweet

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has handed a victory to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, ruling that a controversial 2018 social media post did not constitute an illegal threat to employee stock options. The case centered on a tweet Musk posted on Twitter during union organizing efforts at Tesla’s Fremont, California facility, operated by the United Auto Workers (UAW).

In the May 20, 2018 tweet, Musk stated, "Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues and give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare." The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) deemed this tweet to be an unlawful threat.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans initially upheld the NLRB's ruling and ordered Tesla to rehire a fired employee with back pay. Tesla then sought a rehearing, leading the full 5th Circuit court to review the matter again. In a sharply divided decision dated Friday, nine out of seventeen judges ruled in Tesla's favor.

The majority opinion stated, "We hold that Musk's tweets are constitutionally protected speech and do not fall into the categories of unprotected communication like obscenity and perjury." The ruling also questioned the NLRB's order for the reinstatement of the fired employee, claiming there was insufficient evidence to prove that the dismissal was motivated by anti-union sentiment.

However, Judge Dennis, who wrote the dissenting opinion, argued that employer speech threatening or coercive toward employees during labor organizing elections is not protected by the First Amendment. He contested the majority’s finding regarding the reinstatement of the fired worker, asserting the employee was terminated for refusing to provide information about union activities during an interrogation.

The case has now been sent back to the NLRB for further action. It remains uncertain whether there will be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Associated Press has reached out to the UAW for their next course of action.

The views expressed in this article do not reflect the opinion of ICARO, or any of its affiliates.

Related