Elon Musk wanted to build a bathroom next to his Twitter office so he could use it at night without waking up his bodyguards, a new lawsuit claims
Elon Musk wanted to build a bathroom next to his Twitter office so he could use it at night without waking up his bodyguards, a new lawsuit claims – an accusation that the Tesla billionaire dismissed as absurd.
The lawsuit was filed against Elon Musk and X Corp, Twitter’s holding company, by six former Twitter employees. It accuses them of violating 14 counts, including fraud, breach of contract, and labor-rights laws, Business Insider reported.
The lawsuit also details the work environment at Twitter under Musk. It says that one of the plaintiffs, Joseph Killian, was asked by Boring Company CEO Steve Davis to start building a bathroom next to Musk’s Twitter office.
According to the lawsuit, it is claimed that Davis informed Killian that Elon Musk desired to have a bathroom adjacent to his office. The reason behind this request was to enable Musk to avoid waking his security team and traversing a significant distance across the floor to use the restroom during late-night hours. The lawsuit suggests that this incident serves as a point of contention.
This statement implies that Musk’s convenience and privacy were prioritized, even to the extent of potentially inconveniencing or disturbing his security team during nighttime bathroom visits. By having a bathroom next to his office, Musk would have easy access without the need to disturb others or travel a considerable distance.
The lawsuit’s inclusion of this particular anecdote could be seen as an attempt to portray Musk as someone who prioritizes his personal comfort and convenience over the needs and concerns of his employees.
It may be argued that this request reveals a potential disregard for the disruption caused to his security team and raises questions about the broader work environment and dynamics within the company.
However, it is important to note that the information provided is based on a lawsuit claim, and without further context or evidence, it is challenging to ascertain the full details and implications of the situation.
Killian, who had been employed at Twitter for 12 years, allegedly stated that he would commence work on the bathroom once he had obtained the required permits. However, Davis purportedly instructed him not to concern himself with permits and suggested hiring an unlicensed plumber if licensed plumbers refused to work without the necessary permits.
This portion of the claim implies that Davis, in his role or capacity, may have encouraged or endorsed bypassing the usual legal and regulatory procedures associated with construction projects.
By advising Killian to disregard permits and potentially employ an unlicensed plumber, Davis is alleged to have disregarded established protocols and regulations that ensure safety and compliance with building codes.
The inclusion of this allegation in the lawsuit suggests potential impropriety on the part of Davis, who may have prioritized expediency and convenience over adhering to proper procedures and regulations. It highlights a situation where shortcuts or compromises may have been encouraged, raising concerns about the overall ethical and legal practices within the organization.
As with any legal claim, it is essential to await further evidence and the outcome of the legal process to draw conclusive judgments regarding the validity and implications of these allegations.
In response to the claim, the individual in question, Killian, apparently made a remark dismissing the allegation as an “absurd scenario.”
He purportedly stated that even if the situation described were true, his primary concern would have been the possibility of his “bodyguards” being asleep rather than focusing on minimizing the distance to the bathroom to counter potential threats from assassins.
This comment suggests that Killian did not take the claim seriously and regarded it as a far-fetched or exaggerated depiction of the circumstances.
By emphasizing the importance of the bodyguards being alert and vigilant rather than shortening the travel distance to the bathroom, Killian aimed to undermine the significance or plausibility of the alleged motivations behind Musk’s request.
It is important to note that this response provides only one perspective on the matter and does not necessarily offer conclusive evidence or insights into the truth of the claim. The inclusion of such remarks in the context of the lawsuit may serve as an attempt to downplay or dismiss the seriousness of the allegations or to present an alternative narrative.
Ultimately, the veracity and implications of the claim can only be determined through further examination of evidence and legal proceedings.
In March, a former employee of Twitter shared information with the BBC, stating that Elon Musk was accompanied by bodyguards at all times, even within the office premises.
According to this employee, wherever Musk moved within the office, including visits to the restroom, he was accompanied by at least two bodyguards who were described as imposing and reminiscent of Hollywood movie-style security personnel.
This testimony aligns with the earlier claim made in the lawsuit regarding Musk’s desire to have a bathroom next to his office. It suggests that the presence of bodyguards was indeed a significant factor in Musk’s request, as mentioned in the lawsuit.
The former employee’s description underscores the level of security and protection afforded to Musk, with a constant security presence regardless of his location within the office.
The inclusion of this statement from a former employee provides additional support to the claims made in the lawsuit, reinforcing the notion that Musk’s concern for privacy and convenience was intertwined with the need to ensure his personal security.
It also sheds light on the unique circumstances surrounding Musk’s presence in the workplace, where security measures extended to even mundane activities like using the restroom.
It is worth noting that these statements represent one individual’s account, and the complete context and details of Musk’s security arrangements may involve additional factors that are not fully disclosed.
- ‘Want our children back!’ Why Kate Winslet and Elon Musk don’t want kids using smartphones
- Elon Musk fears teenage daughter think he’s ‘evil’ because he’s ‘rich’
- Fact Check: Is Elon Musk suing The View and Whoopi Goldberg?
- Starship Explosion: How Elon Musk’s SpaceX Got Here