
Ellen Pao Loses Silicon Valley Bias Case Against Kleiner Perkins - conover
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/technology/ellen-pao-kleiner-perkins-case-decision.html
======
devindotcom
Let's not let the outcome of this specific case affect the idea that there is
an institutional bias - conscious or unconscious - against women entering and
thriving in male-dominated fields like this one.

Just as one flurry in April doesn't disprove global warming, one dismissed
lawsuit doesn't disprove a deep but sometimes subtle sexism. It's the same
with other powerful prejudices that have endured for centuries or millennia.

There are many factors acting against women, just as there are many working
against people of color, the poor, and those who do not cleave to traditional
sexual or gender norms. Please do what you can to support these people in your
life, in all their endeavors.

~~~
michaelochurch
Without fanning class war and just to state a fact, Ellen Pao was able to
afford top-notch lawyers, which you'd need to go against KPCB given what
they'll do to your career. Only "the 1%" can do what she did and keep their
careers and finances (after legal bills) intact. That doesn't invalidate her
case _at all_ but it informs the selection because, honestly, hers was one of
the weaker ones. (That's not to begrudge her for filing it. I think well of
her for doing so.) If more people (who are likely to have stronger cases) had
such access, you'd see much stronger cases hitting the Valley elite.

It's similar to the Michael Brown case. On inspection, we found that his was
one of the weaker cases when it comes to racial harassment by police. It
doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance.

Pao v. Kleiner was going to be a close call. I _wanted_ to find KP guilty and,
looking at the evidence, it seemed that the worst interpretation that I could
summon was of negligence. They did fail in allowing her to recover her
reputation after Mr. Nazre's attack on her. They did have a performance review
system that allowed him to damage her professional reputation out-of-band to
the point where she couldn't recover. That was a major moral failure on their
part. (On the other hand, they seemed decent in offering a transition plan,
and I'm surprised that John Doerr wasn't able to fix her career on an external
vector, making all parties happy.) Gender discrimination? A tough call.
Probably not, to be honest. Plenty of people have their reputations ruined
because of irrelevancies and political chicanery. Management being bad at its
job (in this case, performance appraisal) is not the same thing as a Civil
Rights Act violation.

Is Silicon Valley corrupt as hell and a bit sexist? Sure. Is it likely that
Ellen Pao's "personality conflicts" were, to some degree, gendered? Yes. Did
Kleiner Perkins violate the CRA? It's not so clear. But I really don't want
anyone to interpret this to mean either (a) that Valley meritocracy is
vindicated, or (b) even that this suit was "frivolous", because it clearly
wasn't.

~~~
bequanna
> It doesn't invalidate the issue or the grievance.

It most certainly does.

In fact, I would argue that the public's opinion of the validity of these
grievances hinges on the outcome of these high-profile cases.

It's never a good idea to cry wolf.

edit: I'm not saying she was lying. Hell, I have no idea. What I am saying is
that if people view this as a frivolous case or think she is lying, that most
certainly does harm to the underlying cause.

~~~
anaximander
I think what they're trying to say is:

Grievance - Racial minorities (specifically, black people) are unfairly
discriminated against by law enforcement.

Just because, in this case, this tragic situation was deemed a legally
acceptable use of force, doesn't mean that racial minorities are not generally
discriminated against by law enforcement.

Similarly, just because this case wasn't a clear-cut case of gender
discrimination, doesn't mean it isn't still a valid problem in this industry.

~~~
bequanna
Ok, so let's talk about that case.

Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were
later shown to be false.

I am arguing that the public ties the validity of that case to the underlying
grievance.

Same here: If people think Pao was lying or view her negatively, that causes
quite a bit of harm to her cause.

~~~
dethstar
>Michael Brown supporters/witnesses made claims about that situation that were
later shown to be false.

"made a reference to a woman’s testimony who claimed she had seen the shooting
of the black teenager by the white officer, but she “clearly wasn’t present”
at the scene. McCulloch reportedly said that the woman “recounted a story
right out of the newspaper" that backed Wilson’s version of events surrounding
the fatal shooting that occurred Aug. 9."[1]

"Most of the dozens of witnesses who testified likely did their best to
describe what they saw, but a review of thousands of pages of grand jury
documents shows that untrustworthy testimony came from some witnesses on both
sides." [2]

"Key Witness In Michael Brown Case May Not Have Actually Seen Him Die, Report
Says" [3]

[1] [http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-witnesses-gave-
fa...](http://www.ibtimes.com/mike-brown-shooting-witnesses-gave-false-
testimony-under-oath-ferguson-grand-jury-1763908)

[2] [http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-
witnesses...](http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/14/justice/ferguson-witnesses-
credibility/)

[3] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/sandra-mcelroy-
ferg...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/16/sandra-mcelroy-ferguson-
witness_n_6334714.html)

------
gojomo
If you know the principals involved, or saw everything the jury saw (including
legal instructions from the judge), you might have a valid opinion on why any
particular legal result is either scandalous or righteous.

But if you're just a distant spectator, cheering a team based on general
affinities to the _kind_ of people on either side, or general causes without
regard to the case specifics... then you're actually part of the problem,
making workplaces and communities unfair to real people based on
superficialities and acquired prejudices.

~~~
brighteyes
This is the best comment here, and among the only ones relevant.

This trial is about two parties. It isn't a proper representative in any way
of any other parties or of any larger ideas or trends in tech.

12 people were tasked with carefully listening to all the evidence over a
month, _and not listening to the media summaries_. They decided for KP. We
have very reasonable basis to trust that they got it right, or that at least
they did as well as we could given the same evidence.

What does this say, if anything, about more general matters? Bayesian
statistics might suggest that it decreases the belief in rampant sexism among
VCs. But by how much, it's really impossible to tell. So we don't have much of
a basis to change any general views on the industry based on this case. Just
like it would have been had the verdict been the opposite (but again,
Bayesian-wise it would have been some amount of support to the opposite
position).

------
colmvp
> Ms. Pao, it emerged in testimony, compiled a “resentment” chart of
> colleagues who, she believed, wronged her.

Wow. How petty. There's so many things that came from this case that make me
question how much of the testimony from her is real and how much of it is in
her head.

Another example, from a recent re/code article:

> Ellen Pao said she filed her gender discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner
> Perkins Caufield & Byers partly because of three female administrative
> assistants who had been discriminated against because of their gender

> There is only one problem: No one in the courtroom seems to know where these
> admins are. No one seems to know the details of their grievances. No one in
> court, including Pao, even knows all their names.

And then:

> Pao also said she was told by Kleiner Perkins talent partner Juliet de
> Baubigny that Nazre was a “sex addict.” To her, that pointed to a larger
> unspoken history. “I thought she must have additional information and maybe
> about the administrative assistants,” Pao said.

> Asked on the stand today whether she ever called Nazre a “sex addict,” de
> Baubigny replied, “No, that is completely ridiculous.”

~~~
Smoofer
Well, the last example is really a "he said/she said" situation, to be fair.
If there's no proof otherwise besides Pao's testimony, it would make sense
that de Baubigny would say it never happened.

I did think the "resentment chart" was very high school, though.

~~~
sukilot
I am sad to see this bigotry that looks down on people who organize their
thoughts and experiences on paper, vs keeping mental grudges that are likely
psychologically biased.

~~~
Smoofer
There's nothing inherently wrong with keeping a list like that - just the way
it is presented in the article makes it feel very juvenile.

------
Someone1234
That article isn't trying to remain impartial at all.

By about half way down they gave up all pretence and started arguing that
Pao's case was valid/accurate even if the jury disagreed.

You'd almost think the author forgot she actually lost. 12 people decided she
had no case, what would be enough for this author? 20? 50? I doubt even that
would do it, they've pre-decided what actually occurred.

~~~
s3r3nity
I found this to be surprising about the entire coverage of the case.

Following tech blogs and checking HN links, you would've thought that Pao's
case was bulletproof, with some minor nuances and qualifications. After
reading the full details of the arguments on both sides, I now understand why
the jury ruled the way it did.

~~~
matt4077
That's probably not media bias but a function of trial mechanics: the
plaintiff gets to present their case first and that's where the first reports
– and your first opinion – are drawn from.

~~~
sukilot
Note that it is still bias! In a psychological/statistical sense. A good
lesson to remember.

------
zone411
I encourage everybody to read the closing arguments liveblog at
[http://recode.net/2015/03/24/live-closing-arguments-in-
ellen...](http://recode.net/2015/03/24/live-closing-arguments-in-ellen-paos-
gender-discrimination-case-against-kleiner-perkins/) to see the defense's side
of the story that is at least based on facts established during the trial
before believing seriously biased mainstream news stories unquestioningly
repeating Pao's initial claims (or HN posters jumping to conclusions with
their claims of "damning" testimony or "sexual harassment.") The VCs might be
assholes and there is real harassment happening but there was just no evidence
of discrimination in this particular case and if it was decided differently,
it would have been a setback to both men and women in the workplace.

------
enlightenedfool
Good time to be woman in tech. My company has a special program to identify
and promote specifically women to management roles. Not meritocracy. Even a
male in a team works and performs better, he loses because the policy is to
get some percentage of women into leadership. Let the down voting begin.

~~~
feybay
Meritocracy is a myth, didn't you hear?

~~~
Crito
Now we know why they hated that rug so much.

------
minimaxir
Not so fast:
[https://twitter.com/NellieBowles/status/581566725889490944](https://twitter.com/NellieBowles/status/581566725889490944)

> _The jury was 8 /4 on one count, so the judge says he can't accept the
> verdict right now, has sent them back into deliberations._

~~~
mirashii
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if this is a common action by judges, or
something out of the ordinary?

~~~
us0r
Not sure on this but a few parts of this case are out of the ordinary like the
jury asking questions during the case.

~~~
ketralnis
I sat on a California civil jury last year, and we were able to ask witnesses
questions. They were heavily filtered and reworded by the judge and attorneys,
and asked by the judge. I think it strongly affected the outcome in my case.

------
youngButEager
Firms that are bad to their employees get busted fast.

Firms that are bad to their employees - that comes from the top people who set
the tone and culture. If the people at the top were bad, KPCB would have been
kaput LONG LONG AGO.

KPCB has been around for FORTY THREE years. If the people at the top -- who
are still there after all this time -- were bad to their employees, we'd have
heard about it a LONG time ago.

John Doerr runs the firm. John Doerr has been there for Thirty-Five Years. We
would have known long ago if KPCB was bad to their employees, because the same
people have been at the top running the firm all this time.

After you've been in the workplace (and this may not apply if you're just an
'individual contributor' type of person) and seen the narcissism up close --
and seen it more than once -- and you've read the description of the
'narcissistic personality disorder' profile -- you'd see Ellen Pao all over:

* Pretending to be more important than they really are

* Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements

* Claiming to be an "expert" at many things

* Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people

* An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchanges

* Problems in sustaining satisfying relationships

In short, she had problems with others at KPCB. The jury saw that John Doerr
_very gently_ tried to help her. That was all the way back in 2006, at her
very first review.

From 2005 until she was fired, she was working there on borrowed time. Anyone
else with the consistently bad teamwork skills would have been let go LONG
ago. Only because the head of the firm, John Doerr, tried over and over to
help her 'get over herself', was she able to remain employed there.

Again, if you've ever worked with this type of personality, you'd have known,
after reading her history (link below), that her lawsuit was the narcissist'
siren call, "I know I did well, and no one else thinks I did, so they need to
be punished".

[http://www.paradisepost.com/business/20150304/john-doerr-
tes...](http://www.paradisepost.com/business/20150304/john-doerr-testifies-he-
fought-to-keep-ellen-pao)

------
rhino369
I think it is very clear that there is an environment in tech world that is
off putting to women and it probably discriminates against women in general.

But it isn't at all clear to me that Ellen Pao got rejected from partnership
because she was a woman.

I assume that is why the jury sided with Kleiner Perkins.

------
enraged_camel
I only followed this from afar, but my understanding is that the defense did a
terrific job and that's the main reason Pao lost. They were able to
successfully paint her as someone who is very unpleasant to work with and not
entirely honest either. Once her character was assassinated, it was easy to
sway the jury against her.

I may be wrong though.

~~~
sp332
Ars Technica has a series of articles on the case. They go into detail about
the various claims on both sides and the feeling in the courtroom.
[https://arstechnica.com/series/pao-vs-kleiner-
perkins/](https://arstechnica.com/series/pao-vs-kleiner-perkins/)

------
khuey
Apparently the judge sent them back to further deliberate the claim that she
was fired for this lawsuit.

------
JDiculous
$33k/month severance plus benefits and bonus? It's absurd how much money
venture capitalists make for essentially handing out money.

------
boomzilla
This is a hypothetical question: given the public information Ellen Pao was
going spend a couple of weeks on this trial, plus a lot of other distractions
that came with the trial, would the Reddit board have been biased if they had
not picked her as interim CEO, with the reason being that she might not have
devoted enough time and mental effort to running the company?

~~~
sukilot
It's a hard problem. Good leaders get crushed by forces outside the business,
and it's not always practical to say "take a vacation or downshift duties for
a while".

Personally I have a low faith in outsider CEO hires anyway, though

------
ryanackley
I was totally sympathetic to Ellen Pao therefore I'm interested to hear why
the jury sided with the defense. Does anyone know if there are any
undisputable facts or was it basically he said/she said?

------
imh
I've always liked the analogy to Barry Bonds for this kind of thing. There's a
famous quote out there that goes something like, you can't point to any
specific home run and say "he hit that one because of steroids," but you can
be sure he hit more home runs because of them.

I think that kind of reasoning applies equally here. You can't necessarily
point to bias for any given case (or at least not this one), but that doesn't
mean the bias isn't there.

------
jongraehl
> ... the freewheeling ways of the male-dominated technology industry
> increasingly drew scrutiny.

> Episodes of men behaving badly make the news frequently here, whether it is
> sexism or harassment in the workplace or just derogatory attitudes toward
> women.

So the story in the NYT is that it's a story in the NYT (unless by "here" the
author means tech or SV? Either way, Narrative is a juggernaut. The thinking
and the story becomes more founded in what people are saying than what is.)

------
bruceb
I wonder what KP offered before trial. I guess not more than $1m or maybe she
would have settled?

~~~
nazgul
With her husband's massive financial problems, there's no way $1 million would
have made this worth it for her.

------
yuhong
As a side note, I think the current US anti-discrimination laws are probably
flawed, not because discrimination is not bad but because of problems with
enforcement. I am thinking of imposing anti-discrimination conditions on
specific companies instead.

------
josh2600
This is hard. Nothing about this is easy.

Moving forward, we should all work to make workplaces where everyone can feel
wanted. I don't think Race or Gender matters and I would not want to work
somewhere where it does. I want to work in a place where the caliber of my
work is what matters, not the color of my skin or my genitals.

This is a long battle that may never be won, but it doesn't mean we should
stop fighting.

~~~
blhack
>we should all work to make workplaces where everyone can feel wanted

What about "bros" who want to discriminate against women? Should they feel
wanted?

Here's part of a confusing argument I had with a good friend of mine recently.

A lot of people see "bros" (I really hate that term) as a problem. Their
culture is a problem, their ideas about getting drunk at work and being loud
and boisterous are all problems, and these are things that need to be stopped
in the name of equality and progress.

But what about the individuals there? Some of the "bros" I know who run
companies where they drink a lot at work, have frequent company sponsored
outings to bars, go drinking after hours, go to parties together, etc. are
_refugees_ from the world where none of that was allowed.

To them, they've created a safe space for themselves where they are allowed to
be what they feel most comfortable as.

The sortof neo-progressive response to these people is that what they're doing
is _wrong_ , and should be stopped...

What's confusing and difficult to me about that is that stopping these people
is taking away their safe space. Yes, their safe space is discriminatory (to
people who don't desire the same space, of feel safe in that space), but is
that _necessarily_ a bad thing?

For instance: there is a meetup at a hackerspace in my state called "WTF",
which stands for "Women, Trans, Femme". I, as a white, cis, male would not be
allowed in the shop during that time. Assuming that gender dysphoria is
equally prevalent in men and women, that event discriminates against about 50%
of the population.

The justification for this, which I understand, and I _think_ I support, is
that everybody deserves to have a space where they feel safe. There is a
similar motivation behind things like Double Union in SF; it is a women-only
hackerspace that exists for people who will feel most comfortable in a women-
only hackerspace.

Good! I am glad that all of these people are getting to have their safe
spaces.

But what about my friend that runs a company full of bros? What are they
supposed to do? Because it seems like a lot of people think that they
shouldn't be allowed to have their space (because it's discriminatory).

~~~
jdmichal
I think the response would be: For these groups that are deemed "in power",
their "safe space" is technically everywhere. That is, the default state for
any space is that it is a safe space for them, and specific action must be
taken to counter that.

------
wyclif
I found this section both amusing and revealing:

 _One of the stranger points brought up in testimony was how Ms. Pao, before
she was married, had dated a colleague for six months without ever realizing
he was still living with his wife._

It seems that male nerds are not the only archetype of social ineptitude.

------
conover
Link to the recode.net live stream:

[http://recode.net/2015/03/27/live-the-pao-v-kleiner-
perkins-...](http://recode.net/2015/03/27/live-the-pao-v-kleiner-perkins-
verdict/)

------
chaostheory
Couldn't a lot of problems be averted if companies were more aggressive in
frowning upon romantic relationships in the workplace?

~~~
Someone1234
That sounds like a supreme court case waiting to happen.

Why should companies have the right to tell employees what they can and cannot
do in their own time? What next, authorisation to have a child? Your employer
signing off on where you live?

~~~
smt88
Companies can (and do) have the right to tell employees what they can and
cannot do in their own time, especially if it has an effect on the company.

There are many examples of people being fired for inappropriate posts on
social media, committing crimes (or just being accused of them), and even
smoking cigarettes. There isn't a ton of precedent for the smoking thing, but
it might very well be upheld by a high judge.

The legal basis is that, in many states, you can be fired for almost anything
except your race, age, sex, or religion.

~~~
wfo
Right but the argument isn't that it happens, it's that it's morally
reprehensible. How dare employees of a company act like human beings or have
any time to themselves where they aren't wholly and completely owned and
controlled by their bosses/companies? The nerve of that working class scum,
it's unbelievable.

~~~
smt88
I agree, but there are counter arguments. Any employee (especially those
featured in ads) can be perceived as representing the company or even acting
on behalf of the company. If you behave badly, it can reflect badly on the
company.

There definitely are many wrongful termination suits that test the boundaries
of what companies can do here, so I think we have a pretty good balance at the
moment.

------
bishnu
Court cases aren't just about the verdict. What was revealed about the inner
culture of KP was very enlightening...and I suspect we're about to be
enlightened about similar things at Facebook and Twitter.

If at the very least these conversations start happening out in the open, this
case is a large step forward for the gender discussion in tech.

------
pfisch
So she had an affair with her superior right? I think its strange how many
articles and interviews I have heard in the last two days where somehow that
is not mentioned.

~~~
tsotha
Not her superior. A colleague. An affair with her superior would have been
much more problematic for the firm.

~~~
pfisch
You got downvoted so now I'm confused. Which was it, because they are two very
different things.

~~~
tsotha
Meh. I'm confused too.

------
return0
There was a time when 'tech news' was about computers.

~~~
krylon
Yes, but technology does not happen in a vacuum, and the sociological ecotope
from which it emerges can be quite interesting to those involved and to
society in general.

------
comrade1
I wonder if there'll be blowback against ms pao as a result of this verdict.
She did much to harm successful womens' reputations in the tech industry with
her behavior and innapropriate lawsuit.

They're already having to bury/censor threads concerning this case at reddit,
her new company.

~~~
borgia
>They're already having to bury/censor threads concerning this case at reddit,
her new company.

They don't _have_ to bury or censor them, they're just actively doing it and
have been since the trial began. Anything related to Ellen or her husband
generally got deleted fairly rapidly or hidden from being searchable.

In any case, the community at Reddit seem to absolutely despise her and with a
Reddit staff member apparently offering to testify against her at the trial, I
would be surprised if she were kept around much longer.

------
michaelochurch
Awful title ("Silicon Valley Bias Claims Rejected").

A jury found that Kleiner Perkins did not, based on evidence Pao submitted,
find sufficient cause to believe that _the firm itself_ was not in violation
of the Civil Rights Act.

I would (very hesitantly) agree with that verdict. Sloppy HR and disgusting
office politics and fraudulent performance reviews? Yes. Intentional gender
discrimination? Probably not.

Silicon Valley is still as biased and unfair as ever. It will probably get
worse, after this verdict. A better title would be "Kleiner Perkins Not Proven
Guilty of Gender Discrimination, Jury Says".

------
gitdude
I find it very interesting that the african american woman and the hispanic
man in the jury - both minorities voted "yes" while the predominantly white
and asian jurors voted "no". Is it possible that people who are discriminated
against understand the subtle biases which cannot be captured by evidence or
law.

~~~
colmvp
Are you suggesting that we Asians aren't minorities? That we don't get or
understand what is it to be discriminated against?

~~~
Diamons
Asians are not minorities. Asian people account for 60% of the entire world's
population. Just because a group faces discrimination does not make them a
minority.

~~~
themoonbus
"A Minority, a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that
coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used
in the social sciences, this subordinancy is the chief defining characteristic
of a minority group."

Source:
[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/384500/minority](http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/384500/minority)

So, facing discrimination, which I would think is part of being subordinate,
does make you a minority.

