Fact check: Ashley Vance was a secretary that wanted to be paid like an executive. Elon Musk called her bluff and let her go.

1. Summary of the results

The original statement contains several significant inaccuracies. First, it confuses Ashlee Vance (the biographer) with Mary Beth Brown, who was actually Musk's assistant for 12 years ^[1]. The circumstances of Brown's departure are disputed, with two conflicting narratives:

• According to Ashlee Vance's biography: Brown asked for a raise in 2014, after which Musk tested her by having her take a two-week vacation and then terminated her employment ^[1]
• According to Elon Musk: This account is "total nonsense" and Brown was given 52 weeks of salary plus stock when she left voluntarily to join a small firm ^[2]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Several important contextual elements are missing from the original statement:

• Brown was actually a long-term, valued employee who worked with Musk for over a decade ^[2]
• The company was going through structural changes, requiring specialists rather than generalists in key positions ^[3]
• Musk's mother has suggested that some facts in Vance's biography were "glaringly wrong" ^[3]
• The departure included significant compensation - 52 weeks of salary and stock options ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement appears to be a misrepresentation that serves several biased narratives:

• It portrays the situation as a simple case of an entitled employee being put in their place, when the actual circumstances were far more complex ^{[1] [2]}
• It completely misidentifies the people involved, confusing the biographer (Ashlee Vance) with the assistant (Mary Beth Brown) ^[1]
• The statement ignores the context of organizational changes at Tesla/SpaceX that led to the role transformation ^[3]
• There are competing interests in how this story is told:
• Vance's biography benefits from a more dramatic narrative about Musk's management style ^[3]
• Musk has an interest in maintaining his reputation as an employer and disputing negative characterizations ^[3]

The truth appears to lie somewhere between these competing narratives, with both sides potentially having valid perspectives on what occurred.