A Message from KPCB Partner, John Doerr

I believe that the suit alleges that she was passed over for promotion several times - if that's so, then the opportunity cost of filing suit may be smaller than your scenario would indicate.

I'm not familiar with the situation or any of the parties involved, but... maybe she was wronged and wants to stand up for herself and for future employees of the firm, because no one should suffer from discrimination in the workplace?

Not everything in life can be reduced to a financial cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you have to do the right thing.

Its tough to keep quiet when you think that you've been wronged, especially so publicly. However, you're right. This isn't something that can be won in the court of public opinion.

Simply say: We adamantly disagree with the allegations and will defend ourselves in court.

Then keep silent until the case is won or lost. There isn't much to be gained from making public statements. You don't want to seem like the allegations are correct, so you want to attack the accuser. But that will only make you look worse. So all you can do publicly is make vague statements to show how diverse you are. And that doesn't help much either because all it does is remind people that you're involved in a discrimination suit.

I expect that this is the last we'll hear from them on the subject until after the suit.

"facts – not unfounded claims will determine the outcome of the suit filed against us."

Something to keep in mind, that ultimately, it's the evidence and the quality of the legal team that will determine the outcome of the suit. The facts/truth of the matter come in a distant third.

I often view the results of a court case as an indication of how much evidence could be discovered by each side, and how effective their attorneys were, rather than a clearcut indication of guilt/innocence.

I wonder if anyone has ever done any controlled studies, some anti-rashomonesque like scenario, where the guilt/innocence of each party was objectively and quantifiably determined, and then run a statistically valid sample of these cases through the court system, to see how well guilt/innocence correlates with the court findings.

My wife is working in a big corporation. What you describe is a fundamental problem at all the levels which is very hard to overcome. The company is doing regular training for the people hiring just to show them how they effectively discriminate event without claiming and having the feeling they are not.

This is because you naturally hire and promote people like you. This comes from the evolution of mankind where we trust more people like us and we are resistant to change. You had a good worker, white and a man, you naturally try to hire "the same" if you need to replace him even if a black woman could do the same or even better.

You cannot escape it easily, you need to constantly try hard not to discriminate.

my read is that "confident we will prevail" is actually directly stating they will win the case.

A few observations:

1. Oh, you lawyers. A carefully hidden sentence: "Plaintiff eventually succumbed to Mr Naszre's insistence on sexual relations on two or three occasions". That's the only indication in the entire document that this woman was, in fact, bangin' Mr Naszre. If you ask me, it should be pretty darn difficult to win a "sexual harassment" lawsuit against somebody if you willingly and consensually had sex with 'em both before and after the alleged harassment.

Also, was it two or three? Is she really so unsure of the exact number? It's not like we're talking "fifteen or sixteen" times you cheated on your fiance with a married man, Ms Pao.

2. As for gender discrimination preventing her from moving up: you're a freaking partner. What's the next step up, exactly?

I'm sure things might have been weird after she'd had sex with her coworker, but geez, you should have thought of that before you opened your legs, Ms Pao.

This is not to deny that Mr Naszre had some culpability here too, they both share it. But since it's she rather than he who is doing the suing here it's more relevant to point out her own misconduct.

edit: Removed namecalling.

I am pulling these out of my 4$$ but all of the normal things you could get a bad review over would apply. A portfolio company's respected founders (basically, your client/customer) saying that a partner was difficult to work with, making poor suggestions, wasting time with questions they could get answers for elsewhere, or embarrassing them in meetings with important contacts, etc. Another partner saying that you are difficult to get along with, argumentative, do not do proper research, miss glaring information that demonstrates high risk in an investment, and so on.

Basically, doing a shitty job, being difficult to work with, ruining the firm's reputation, and/or making very bad investment decisions would be good ways to get a bad review.

The world would be great if all that mattered was who did the best job. The world is nothing like that, however.