
Kleiner Perkins seeks legal fees or dropped case from Ellen Pao - nsfmc
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/technology/kleiner-perkins-seeks-nearly-1-million-from-ellen-pao.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=1&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F04%2F24%2Ftechnology%2Fkleiner-perkins-seeks-nearly-1-million-from-ellen-pao.html&eventName=Watching-article-click
======
petercooper
_Other court filings revealed that last November, Kleiner had offered Ms. Pao
$964,502 to settle, an amount based on the projected costs of the case._

That she didn't accept the settlement says a lot for her belief in the case
(or, at the very least, her odds of winning).

~~~
adventured
It's hard to tell whether her position was more financial gambling or
principle (that is, who knows).

She sought $16 million -

[http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27444497/ellen-pao-
se...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27444497/ellen-pao-
seeking-16-million-sex-discrimination-lawsuit)

She clearly believed monetary compensation was important as part of the case.
So then the question becomes, what % of a likelihood of victory would you need
to believe in, to go after $16m vs $964k. Or alternatively, perhaps $964k is
such a (relatively) modest sum for the context, that it simply wasn't a
consideration for her. She can probably earn more than that writing a book
about the ordeal.

~~~
SeoxyS
She was seeking $16M in lost wages, and potentially much more in punitive
damages. I think, had she won, she could be looking at a ridiculous check
close to $100M.

~~~
adventured
Correct, the punitive damages aspect was immense:

"Ellen Pao can sue Kleiner Perkins for up to $160 million in damages"

[http://www.businessinsider.com/ellen-pao-can-sue-kleiner-
per...](http://www.businessinsider.com/ellen-pao-can-sue-kleiner-perkins-for-
damages-2015-3)

[http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27760383/judge-
ellen-...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27760383/judge-ellen-pao-
may-claim-punitive-damages-kleiner)

~~~
tsotha
You always ask for the moon when you sue someone - it doesn't cost anything to
keep adding zeros. I doubt she believed she'd actually get something like
that, though. If she did she's a fool.

------
zxcvcxz
I don't understand all the defending of Pao on HN. She was pretty clearly in
the wrong and there is not much evidence to the contrary. It's counter-
productive to the cause of gender equality to continue to defend her.

~~~
weixiyen
what is your deal?

~~~
zxcvcxz
I'm afraid I don't understand what it is you're asking. If you could clarify
I'd be glad to go into the details of my "deal".

~~~
weixiyen
The deal being what is the point of posting 2 top level comments with the
exact same content and intent. Asking not to get downvoted unless people
provide evidence, and you not providing any evidence for starters.

~~~
zxcvcxz
Look very closely at the usernames. We are not the same person, just similar
usernames (the other one has two 'v's). Not associated with the other poster
at all, it's just a coincidence. I also don't think it's the "exact same
content".

------
monochromatic
> “If Kleiner wanted to look classy, it could have said, ‘This was hard fought
> and we obviously disagree with your view, but it’s in the interest of all
> parties to walk away. In the meantime, there have been lessons learned and
> we are going to fund organizations that focus on glass ceiling issues,’ ”
> Ms. Katz said.

Here in non-fantasy land, why would anyone do as Ms. Katz suggests?

~~~
obstinate
You quoted the reason -- looking/being classy. If you value that more than a
million dollars, and a good many do, and you felt said action would have that
effect, you might choose to do it.

------
def_illiterate
>“If Kleiner wanted to look classy, it could have said, ‘This was hard fought
and we obviously disagree with your view, but it’s in the interest of all
parties to walk away. In the meantime, there have been lessons learned and we
are going to fund organizations that focus on glass ceiling issues,’ ” Ms.
Katz said.

Just donate to my rainbow coalition...

~~~
alexqgb
What they actually said was "Promise not to pursue this case any further or
pay us $1 million."

~~~
def_illiterate
Yep! And I quoted the article's quote from a critic.

I felt it was worth pointing out one of the most patently ridiculous things
I've ever heard, and the fact that it was given play really tells you how the
NYT leans.

~~~
alexqgb
It's a mistake to think of the NYT as a monolithic entity that deliberately
leans one way or another. I've got a few friends who work there, and they all
report that "the" Times is actually about five distinct fiefdoms engaged in a
constant battle with one another. It's a real shark tank, politically
speaking, and not the kind of place with the sort of absolutist, top-down
structure (like, say, Bloomberg) that's conducive to straight party lines.

That said, it was a bullshit link-bait headline buy hey, traffic, right?

------
codinghorror
Revenge: a dish best not served at all.

~~~
bigdubs
Wouldn't she owe $0 if she doesn't appeal?

~~~
bandrami
But she could get $100M if she appeals and wins. Paging Mr. Pascal...

------
zamalek
I think it's important that a precedent is set. Pao was being marginally more
creative than patent trolls. The legal system needs to demonstrate that making
a joke of discrimination, from _both_ sides of the coin (by participating in
it, or by crying wolf), will _not_ be tolerated.

There are millions of people facing real discrimination issues and Pao made a
joke of them all by trying to turn their struggle into her profit.

~~~
dietrichepp
It's also important to note that being unable to prove your case in court is
not the same thing as crying wolf. You make a frivolous lawsuit, you get
punished, yes. But I have not heard arguments to support the idea that Pao
made the claim in bad faith, or negligently.

~~~
zamalek
Legally: yes.

However, the deluge of evidence contradicting discrimination was loud and
clear. From a logical (not legal) standpoint you would have to be incredibly
stupid to not notice that other women are getting ahead in your company, and
Pao isn't stupid.

Smaller companies cannot defend themselves against patent trolls. What's to
stop Pao would-bes from taking advantage of that fact too? How would that
affect the female position in the job market?

It seems reasonable that you don't drag someone through a $900000 lawsuit on a
weak hunch. This "discovery" bullshit is exactly how patent trolls get away
with what they do.

In ethical wars there are some battles you don't want to win, and some that
should never even take place. Everyone sits on a distinct side of the fence
and when they see blood they go for it, it's pathetic and ultimately weakens
their position. It's about reaching a compromise and $900000 is not a
compromise. Kleiner is being the bigger person here and suggesting that
everyone walk away from this, yes it does have PR implication for them, but it
is ultimately the right thing to do.

~~~
dietrichepp
> From a logical (not legal) standpoint you would have to be incredibly stupid
> to not notice that other women are getting ahead in your company, and Pao
> isn't stupid.

I don't see any deluge of women getting ahead at Kleiner Perkins. In fact, it
does seem like an overwhelmingly male environment.

> Smaller companies cannot defend themselves against patent trolls. What's to
> stop Pao would-bes from taking advantage of that fact too? How would that
> affect the female position in the job market?

Patent trolls use the threat of costly litigation to pressure smaller
companies into settlement. Pao's suit was costly on both sides, but she was
not trying to pressure them into settling. First of all, they did offer a $1M
settlement, and she pursued the case anyway. This is at least strong evidence
that she thought that she would prevail in court. Secondly, there was no risk
that Kleiner Perkins would go bankrupt from the costs of litigation. They're a
_venture capital_ firm, for crying out loud, they have lots of capital.

I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep
pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the threat of bankruptcy to coerce a
settlement out of them.

> It seems reasonable that you don't drag someone through a $900000 lawsuit on
> a weak hunch. This "discovery" bullshit is exactly how patent trolls get
> away with what they do.

Patent trolls, again, rely on the fact that expensive discovery proceedings
can bankrupt a company before they are able to successfully defend a patent
lawsuit. As we've established, that was not an issue here. Discovery serves a
useful legal purpose: you need evidence to pursue a case, and without legal
force behind a request for evidence, Kleiner Perkins would have no reason to
provide it. You can't issue subpoenas without filing the suit first, because
you need to show that your suit has merit and that you have standing before
you can begin discovery. Now, there have been actual abuses of the discovery
process. This just isn't one of them.

Pao lost, so she compensates Kleiner Perkins for their expenses, or she
accepts their offer. I don't see why "being wrong in court" would be worthy of
punishment.

~~~
zamalek
> They're a venture capital firm, for crying out loud, they have lots of
> capital.

I thought this hand-to-mouth mentality was something that was exclusive to the
3rd world. Apparently I was wrong. People smell blood and attack. This is not
about KPMG. Have "big" corporates like Microsoft, Apple, Samsung and Google
ever had problems fending off patent trolls? No.

The "crying wolf" story goes a lot further than the mere once-off act of
laying false claim: which is why I specifically use that phrase. You might
read the story and find out what happens to the boy who cried "wolf."

Everyone is determined to win every fight, instead of actually reaching a
goal. Feminism is going nowhere at this rate.

> I don't see why "being wrong in court" would be worthy of punishment.

We're done here. Was that ever a suggestion of mine?

~~~
dietrichepp
Please read the next paragraph.

> I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep
> pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the threat of bankruptcy to coerce
> a settlement out of them.

~~~
zamalek
My argument does not even concern Pao, my argument concern the bigger scheme
of things and this Pao trial as one single battle. This specific battle should
have never happened, but it did, and feminists (who Pao _claims_ to be
fighting for) need to disown this farce as fast as possible.

That paragraph is relevant to defending Pao's virtue: which I have no interest
in and was never talking about. I have no opinion of the woman one way or
another, an opinion of her is completely irrelevant because neither of us is
likely to ever meet her. It is clear that this isn't a debate about something
important and, therefore, _we 're done._

~~~
dietrichepp
The easiest way to end a conversation is not to say, "we're done", bot to
simply not say anything.

It was my understanding that you were talking about Pao because you made
specific claims about her case (that she was "crying wolf", in your terms) and
I was interested in seeing how you would support that position, because I
hadn't heard arguments that she had sued in bad faith and was interested in
listening to those arguments if they existed.

------
dudurocha
I think the title is a bit misleading. Kleiner Perkins is asking Ellen to pay
for its legal fees or simply " if she forgoes any appeal and lets the case
die, the firm will forgive and forget, or at least move on."

~~~
choppaface
Yes the NYT title is a bit off. Pao was always on the hook for those fees, and
KP is offering to waive them if she doesn't appeal. Note that KP already filed
a separate countersuit, which brought Pao's husband to the attention of the
media, before the main case began. WSJ also says Pao is not outright rejecting
the legal fees deal:

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-41461](http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-
DGB-41461)

------
zxcvvcxz
Good for Kleiner. It seems their reputation was being dragged through the mud
on a merit-less case of "she said they said". No factual evidence was
presented justifying Pao's viewpoints.

Before you downvote, please provide factual evidence and I will gladly update
this comment.

~~~
jegutman
There were performance reviews that said she did well, they were mixed and
complicated like all performance reviews. Also given that the defense tried to
discredit her by noting that she sent e-mails to herself it seems strange to
call "she said they said" invalid evidence since without those e-mails there
would be nothing at all.

What would hard evidence even be for this type of case? Is there going to be
an e-mail between partners saying "we should not promote Ellen because she's a
woman"?

Did Ellen Pao prove her case conclusively? I think not. Was it clear that
there were plenty of issues going on at the time that Kleiner could've handled
a lot better? I think so.

~~~
zxcvvcxz
Even perfect performance reviews doesn't entitle one to be promoted. Why does
everyone have this idea in their head, that if they cross all the t's and dot
all the i's the world is going to reward them?

Are we really going to start to sue over disillusionment?

~~~
tw04
When a woman who has perfect reviews is passed over for a promotion by a man
who doesn't... ya, they have some room to be pissed off and gripe.

And yes, if you do everything your employer asks of you and then some, you
should be rewarded. What is this world coming to when doing so is considered
"average"?

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
Playing devil's advocate, being perfect at position X doesn't necessarily mean
you'll be a good fit at position Y, and being less than perfect at position X
doesn't mean you _won 't_ be a perfect fit in position Y.

~~~
ptaipale
Right. Remember Peter's Principle:

Selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's
performance in their current role rather than on abilities relevant to the
intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no
longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their
incompetence."

------
dirkdk
So Kleiner spent $972,815 on their defense. That is absurd amount of money,
and I am sure Ellen Pao did not have those kind of funds. That also made it
hard for her to win this case

~~~
feybay
The fact that she was clearly in the wrong also made it a hard case for Pao to
win.

~~~
PsychopompPoet
Checks out -- lit up red on my Clearly-in-the-wrong-o-meter

