A San Francisco judge has upheld an arbitration ruling in favor of Tesla in a dispute with a former employee who alleged arbitrator bias. The employee claimed the arbitrator changed legal standards mid-case and favored the company due to repeated assignments. The decision reinforces Tesla's position in the libel claims brought by the ex-employee.
In a recent ruling, a San Francisco judge upheld Tesla's victory in an arbitration dispute with a former employee. The employee had accused the arbitrator of bias, specifically claiming he was 'changing the rules mid-hand' and favoring Tesla after receiving a string of arbitration assignments from the carmaker.
The arbitration was conducted by Richard J. McAdams, a retired justice from the 6th District Court of Appeal who now serves as a JAMS arbitrator. In 2021, McAdams ruled that Tesla owed nothing to the ex-employee regarding her libel claims.
The judge's decision to reject the bias claim came after the employee challenged the arbitration outcome, arguing that the arbitrator switched legal standards during the proceedings. This upheld Tesla's position, dismissing the allegations of impartiality.
William Moran II is mentioned in connection with the case, though details on his role remain partial in available reports. The ruling underscores ongoing tensions in employment disputes involving high-profile companies like Tesla, particularly around arbitration processes and perceived conflicts of interest.
No further details on the employee's identity or the specifics of the libel claims were provided in the sources, but the case highlights scrutiny over arbitrator neutrality in corporate litigation.