Kleiner Perkins Partner Ellen Pao Sues Firm for Gender Discrimination
allthingsd.com
allthingsd.com
It also sounds like the firm is controlled by men who tend to favor men for promotions and compensation.
Ultimately I think lawsuits like this are what will move the industry forward. It forces complacent old powerful men to take young women seriously.
Hopefully she gets paid for her trouble and KPCB significantly improves their environment for women.
How do you know they favor men? Maybe there is a bigger pool of talented men than women in this field?
In the suit, Pao alleges that she was sexually harrassed
for years by Ajit Nazre, a former partner with the firm
who left last year. The two took a business trip together
in February 2006, the suit says, during which Nazre made
sexual advances toward Pao and she rebuffed them, causing
him to become “brusque and distant.”
Nazre continued to pursue Pao and the two had a brief
relationship, which she broke off soon after, according to
the suit.
but after breaking things off with him, multiple Kleiner Perkins partners and an outside human resources consultant allegedly ignored Pao’s complaints about repeated harassment and retaliation, and rejected her requests to transfer away from Nazre.
Having once been in a relationship with a person does not open the door to continued harassment after the relationship is over.
On the larger topic of sexual harassment, I often wonder if there should be a word for sexual harassment just as we have one for rape(where stop means stop). With sexual harassment, seemingly normal conversation could be construed as criminal.
Alas, don't shit where you eat.
If she is not bringing up the criminal angle, chances are she never pursued it or the DA passed on the case. That is not great news for her case.
Typically you do the civil case after the conclusion of the criminal one, especially if you are confident he will be found guilty.
Was thinking the same thing. Also a psychological component, intermittent reinforcement. She had rebuffed him and then agreed to have sex 2 or 3 times. Who knows over what period that happened and whether there was any rebuff in between the sexual events. After all, he persisted and to away with it at least one time after being rejected.
(Not agreeing his behavior was proper obviously just pointing this out.)
No.
Which means, no.
When she first said no, and he persisted, and then she acceded, she trained him into believing that persistence pays off. So when she says no again, it seems to me that it is almost mathematically predictable that he will re-double his persistent efforts to win her back.
'no means no' does not apply when it sometimes means yes. With added flakiness, 'no means no' means : 'no means yes once in a while, and no means no when I feel like it, and you're a rapist and I'm still an angel if you cannot figure it out'.
Where did you pull the false accusation / innocent or trivial incidents from?
And if may not be true in this case why bring it up?
She asked to be transferred away from him because of this and they ignored her, how much more insensitive could it get.
Even when you're in a relationship 'no' still means 'no' and 'leave me alone' still means just that.
Occam's razor and all that.
Harassment does happen, and in cases like this the person that steps up has enough problems on their hand without being dealt more crap.
The prior situation has no bearing on what she claims happened, it either did or it did not, and even if it did not the complaint should have been taken serious.
So we're not even getting to 'taking the complaints at face value', we're simply establishing that she claims that her complaints were ignored. That's a pretty low bar to have to jump over, if someone claims sexual harassment and you ignore them then you're simply wrong, regardless of whether or not the complaint is true.
If you sue McDonald's for food poisoning frivolously, have the bucks to do so, and are somehow immunized against a countersuit, there's no downside.
Pao, win or lose, is going to have a very different VC career than if she never filed suit. That's a pretty big downside.
But the unequal pay, promotions, projects, and participation? That is a rather unequivocal situation.
How on earth are they mutually exclusive? A nontrivial number of rape victims become bullied/manipulated into relationships with their assailants. Not sure if you're saying that excuses the crime.
Here's the actual text of the lawsuit;
In February 2006 Plaintiff and another Junior Partner,
Ajit Nazre, went on a business trip to Germany. Mr. Nazre
had the same job title as Plaintiff, but had been with
the firm since 2003, two years longer than Plaintiff, and
directed some of her work, including the Germany trip.
Mr. Nazre made inappropriate sexual approaches to
Plaintiff on that trip. She rebuffed his advances.
Mr. Nazre responded to her rebuff of his advances by
becoming brusque and distant. He also had strong
influence over how other partners at the firm would view
Plaintiff, specifically Ray Lane, a Managing Partner and
Mr. Nazre's sponsor and mentor. From March to October
2006, Mr. Nazre continued to pressure Plaintiff to have
a sexual relationship with him. Mr. Nazre falsely told
her that this wife had left him. When Plaintiff refused
his advances, Mr. Nazre engaged in offensive, obstructionist
and difficult behaviour toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff eventually
succumbed to Mr. Nazre's insistence on sexual relations
on two or three occasions. In October 2006 Plaintiff
informed Mr. Nazre that she would no longer have a personal
relationship with him. Mr. Nazre started a consistent
pattern of retaliation against her.
The fact that she is pursuing this as a civil case already tells us that they didn't have enough for a criminal one. If the above was indeed true, it is a criminal case.
Or she felt pressured and felt that a short relationship might be the answer to her woes
_Feeling_ x does not automatically entitle you to winning a case for sexual harassment nor does it make for much evidence.
I'll wait for the evidence, so far I haven't seen it... which is reasonable given the suit was just filed. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume innocence.
That just tells me the DA didn't want to touch this one.
Her written review included the words;
The number of issues and clashes with your peers and
other partners that were discussed last year has
decreased quite a bit, but acceptance by this group
is still not evident.
Without knowing more details, how can you state the above so confidently?
You cite a few sentences from a review which are pretty hard to interpret without context. You are hinting that the word "acceptance" points at a conspiracy by The Group against women or this woman. I have no idea how you can be convinced of that merely by reading the contents of the initial filing.
Without knowing more details, how can you state the above so confidently?
To quote from the filing;
Upon information and belief, Ray Lane and John Doerr discussed
how to respond to to Plaintiff. Ray Lane met with Plaintiff.
While acknowledging that Mr. Nazre's behavior was inappropriate
Mr. Lane pressured Plaintiff to drop the matter because of
Mr. Lane''s close ties with and mentorship of Mr. Nazre.
Though Plaintiff had formally cmplained about Mr. Nazre's behavior,
Mr. Lane encouraged Plaintiff to engage in a personal relationship
with Mr. Nazre and even to marry him. Mr. Lane said, however,
that in such case, either Plaintiff or Mr. Nazre would have to
leave the firm because two spouses could not work together at KPCB.
Mr. Lane said he and Mr. Nazre had discussed Plaintiff's report
of sexual harrassment.
KPCB was aware of and did not take reasonable steps to prevent
retaliation and gender discrimination. KPC management was aware
of and did not prevent Mr. Nazre from engaging in repeated
retaliatory behavior for nearly five years. Following her formal
complaint described above, Ray Lane insisted that Plaintiff
have a one-on-one lunch with Mr. Nazre outside the office
to discuss their relationship. Plaintiff saw no choice but
to comply with the demand of a Managing Partner. Unsurprisingly,
Mr. Nazre made inappropriate comments and engaged in unprofessional
behavior, and seemed to be further empowered by KPCB to further
retaliate against her.
The parent was merely responding to the suggestion that if the two had slept together, that excuses behavior that would otherwise have been harassment. Having slept with someone definitely doesn't entitle you to sexually harass them. The merits of the claims have yet to be seen, but you can't just dismiss them out of hand by saying, "Oh, but she slept with him."
Future civilizations are going to look at our bizarre notions regarding sex like we looked at the notions of the Victorians.
We should presume that Mr. Nazre is innocent and not attack his character. We should also do the same for Ms. Pao.
Doesn't "yes" mean "yes", not "yes but I might sue you later"?
If you ask someone to stop such a pattern of behavior and they don't, that's harassment regardless of your personal history.
Is "harassment" just "I felt mad at him years later" or is there any precise definition you're working from? Because if you define harassment as "unwanted advances", they objectively weren't unwanted back in 2006.
To really dumb this down, this isn't like a child asking parents for a toy repeatedly and once the toy is given everyone involved is fine and has moved on. This is like an annoying salesperson calling you repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved in and bought something from them.
his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for
that matter, those times they were successful).
You sure you want to take that position?
Let's take it a little further. Suppose, as seems highly plausible, Nazre has steamy emails, texts, or pictures sent by Pao during that period.
Does that obviate the charge of harassment? Because I'd bet that will come out in discovery. I suppose the argument at that point will be that she was harassed into sending the pics.
This is like an annoying salesperson calling you
repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved
in and bought something from them.
Well, I hope you're a troll. The alternative is too depressing. :(
Read the complaint. Ellen Pao, an extremely wealthy woman, has issues with virtually every partner at KPCB, one of whom she sleeps with and subsequently charges with sexual harassment years later. By her own admission, over a period of six years she continually complains about other partners and her compensation, title, and responsibilities. On the one hand she demands a transfer; yet on the other hand she wants the "harassers" to include her in meetings and emails and spends a full paragraph on the outrage of not being invited to a dinner party and another on ostensibly being excluded from a get together with junior associates.
She marries a man who made millions off of discrimination lawsuits. To top it off, she then launches her own discrimination lawsuit after seven years at the firm which made her so much money.
These are facts. They come from her filing: http://techcrunch.com/2012/05/22/kleiner-perkins-sexual-hara...
If anyone believes these charges at face value they are simply credulous. She is looking for "monetary restitution", a multimillion dollar payday comparable to what her husband has squeezed out of others in his multiple discrimination lawsuits.
No.
I see you have difficulty distinguishing between harassment and advances, unwanted or otherwise. You do, however, appear to know or are ready to presume a lot about this case, including things that are on a man's phone, so there is nothing more I wish to add to our discussion. Thanks for engaging me!
Fortunately, in a digital age, the past is not something Ellen Pao can rewrite at will. Future rule of thumb for anyone so unfortunate as to be caught up in an office romance: get her to put it in electronic form. Just one photographic expression of affection is enough to demonstrate to all and sundry that yeah, at the time, yes did mean yes. Since even admissions of consent no longer seem to preclude bogus charges, it's the only way to avoid being railroaded in a spurious lawsuit with people like you cheering on the travesty of justice.
This lawsuit isn't against the guy. This lawsuit is against the firm about their claimed lack of suitable response for her reports of harassment and a request for transfer. (And then there's the parts about systemic discrimination.)
Fact 29 is also pretty damning. If this is true, it's clearly not just a problem with Ms. Pao in particular, but all women.
I agree with all the other posters who have said this is why you don't have personal relationships with people at work. Especially not in the same group.
I do have trouble understanding the part where Nazre is continually harassing her, so she just gives in and has a relationship with him, despite him apparently being married. This is all kinds of wrong.
That's from the complaint. The weirdness shows that we haven't been told the whole story yet.
Still, this whole thing is disturbing.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/the-money-manager-who...
http://cooperator.com/articles/1450/1/Top-Dozen-Reasons-for-...
Edit: (Comment below). Where I said "have an absolute right to reject anyone" I meant as long as it doesn't violate a law. This is similar to how a company can refuse to hire anyone for any reason as long as they don't state a reason which is prohibited by law and as long as no evidence to that surfaces.
No they don't: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/45/I/3604
Given that the co-op board doesn't actually own the unit being sold, their only option to stop that is to block the sale to him, and there's relatively little cost to them. Even for the seller, it won't be that hard to find another buyer so it's not a huge deal.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/condos1.asp
------------------------------------------------
<code> "In a cooperative says St. John, an attorney whose firm represents more than 600 condominium, cooperative, and homeowner associations, the building containing the residential units or apartments is owned by a 'cooperative housing corporation.'"</code>
------------------------------------------------
<code> "In a condominium, each unit owner owns an individual apartment in fee simple. In addition, the buyer owns an undivided interest in the common elements such as the exterior walls, roof, pool and other recreational areas." </code>
------------------------------------------------
Edit: Any idea why my code tags don't work?
I was trying to point out that the board members don't have much economic incentive to approve a particular buyer - if the unit eventually sells for less, it doesn't directly harm the occupants on the board unless one of them is the seller.
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/2012/02/is-harvard-gr...
they stopped him from buying his fourth apartment, because a financial background check worked out that the guy couldn't afford it - despite being listed in Forbes magazine as being worth $150M
the article and others then go on to question how his investment funds have been making double-digit returns for the past two decades (sound familiar?)
"Before his marriage to Ms. Pao, Mr. Fletcher lived in the Dakota with Hobart V. Folkes Jr., his partner of more than 10 years, according to a New York Times article in 2004 on Mr. Fletcher’s philanthropy."
Often enough to have happened, apparently.
Perhaps not developer-oriented, but certainly in line with recent posts here on HN.
No company should have to suffer employees doing stupid things like this.
If she wants to sue over his behavior, why not sue him?
Oh right, who has the most money?
Being harassed, and giving in briefly to the harassment in the hope that it will stop, does not necessarily make you weak, and does not stop you from seeking justice afterwards.
I don't presume to say whether it's true, just that the story has resonance for those reasons. I hope it reminds someone else in a bad situation to, y'know, break out, blow the whistle. I hope it reminds men who see it happening and who hear these complaints to act on them, to try to speak up against people making openly sexist comments.
Sadly, you probably just shouldn't do it.
My point is that she's seriously jeopardizing her career and everything she's worked for professionally by bringing these issues to the forefront. Whatever outcome occurs, Kleiner Perkins will still be standing.
That is a big sacrifice for a chance at a "payout" or validating some feminist rhetoric.
I believe some of the other details are incriminating as well and in the end it doesn't matter that she had a relationship Nazre, but as soon as something like this is muddied many people will say its complicated and therefore not worth the time to look at it.
But, no matter these other details, she felt uncomfortable and asked not for retribution, but to sacrifice her current role in order to escape an uncomfortable situation and KP said NO. That seems unacceptable to me.
Smoking is forbidden on airplanes. But if someone does smoke, it's better that they have an ashtray available rather than starting a fire by trying to dispose of the ashes improperly.
People who engage in sexual harassment may not understand office norms, but like everyone else, they have an instinctive understanding of power relationships.
I'd love to be running discovery for this case. How likely is it that someone, once, wrote something really stupid in an e-mail between senior partners, regarding Pao's allegations?
I'm curious why she stayed though. VCs move between firms in the valley not irregularly, leaving previous firms on both positive and negative notes. My top two guesses are that either she wasn't able to find anything else, or she wanted to stick it to them by collecting enough evidence to win this case.
Both make me sad - the former because it means everyone else was blind to her apparent talent, and the latter because even if she wins this she'll never get that time she was miserable back.
I hope that the truth comes out and justice is served, but can't help wondering if success elsewhere might have been the best revenge.
If you spent your whole life to reach the top of your profession, you wouldn't want to walk away just because some douchebag was harassing you.
Many women do just what you suggest, which is right on an individual level but doesn't help the cause of the gender. Ms. Pao, as a wealthy and successful woman has the opportunity to change the game. And the resources to fight a firm with very deep pockets. If people who make it don't fight to change the system, who will?
Reading the complaint shows that KPCB was following the standard playbook for removing an employee cleanly. A lesson for the kids out there: HR works for the company, not for you. Never reveal anything to HR.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94433811/Kleiner-Perkins-Ellen-Pao
1. She's beautiful, smart, terrific, and reasonable
2. Her husband is extremely wealthy, so this isn't about money
3. Her husband sued the Dakota building for discrimination (she lives in SF, he lives there, they commute between)
Make of that what you will.