Real quick: all of this information exists in your head because of online articles. You haven't seen the full proof of this happening. Be careful of making conclusions based on stories rather than evidence.
And first person accounts from people I trust all confirming things along the same lines. On the other hand there are people defending Tesla or Musk because they genuinely haven't observed such issues but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In practically all such cases it just means they never got on the wrong side of your company or CEO. A company should never treat you like garbage because you pissed them off. Or ever.
Imagine sexual harassment cases where the vast majority of men will genuinely say they haven't witnessed any foul play. But it's clearly not a sign the issue doesn't exist, just that some people never got to see it.
Im just saying not to form hard conclusions on things unless you have pretty hard evidence available that presents a certain picture. Its too easy to fall into the trap of manufactured outrage.
Whether she is telling the truth is for you to judge. The details and tone of voice sound genuine.
That's a very "euphemistic" way of putting it. Kind of like putting someone in a wheel chair could be described as "allowing them to tackle different challenges".
She was more than just let go, she was bullied, humiliated, demoted, threatened, retaliated against, and blackmailed among others. Evidence was tampered with, destroyed, or manufactured, along with quite the list of irregularities even judges observed.
There's nothing to justify that except an incredibly toxic company culture coming straight from a brilliant but extremely toxic leader. But people like him don't have to worry about any court. They can always buy their escape from a court of law with money, and buy their escape from the court of public opinion with charisma, PR, and their loyal following.