
Ellen Pao Owns the Room - MilnerRoute
http://www.techcrunch.com/2015/03/09/ellen-pao-owns-the-room/
======
tptacek
_She said that Lane_ [her and Nazre's supervisor] _had responded not with
action on the HR front, but by telling the story of how he had met his second
wife while they were both working at Oracle. He had been married to his first
wife at the time. Lane said that he had gone on to have a wonderful life with
his former colleague — and that, perhaps, Pao could have that with Nazre._

 _But, Pao said, Lane added that she and Nazre likely wouldn’t be able to work
together. When Lane became involved with his current wife at Oracle, his wife
had to quit. Pao said this implied that Lane was suggesting that she would
have to leave Kleiner, too._

 _“Did you tell Mr. Lane that you were interested in having a serious
relationship with Mr. Nazre?” Lawless asked._

 _“Absolutely not,” Pao said._

 _Lane then suggested that she and Nazre have a one-on-one lunch to try and
figure out how to work things out._

 _(For his part, Lane said in his testimony last week that he only relayed
this story to show how he understood how complicated workplace relationships
could be.)_

This is vivid, credible, and damning, given that the anecdote about Lane's
wife is, after his own testimony, an established fact of the case, as is
apparently Pao's unwillingness to continue a personal relationship with Nazre,
which is documented in emails.

There are galactic-scale legal resources allocated to both sides of this
controversy, so who knows where this will go next. But in the annals of "how
not to respond to a personnel concern", this has to be right up there.

~~~
darkerside
Knowing they were in the midst of an on-again off-again relationship, Lane may
have had a reasonable assumption that there was still an intention to continue
the relationship, without Pao explicitly stating that she was interested in a
serious relationship. At this point, the fewer conclusions we all jump to the
better.

~~~
scott_karana
If someone in a relationship goes _to their corporate HR manager for
relationship assistance_ , I don't think your assumption is reasonable at all!

If they were a marriage counselor, or a close friend, sure, but somehow I
think _nobody_ willing to salvage a personal relationship is going to bring it
to their office's attention for assistance...

~~~
polarix
Oh, that depends on framing. In some situations employees are asked explicitly
to approach HR at the emergence of a relationship in order to prevent conflict
of interest.

~~~
amirmc
That would indicate the _presence_ of some kind of HR policy. Something that
appears to be lacking in this case.

------
TheMagicHorsey
I know this is just one side of the story ... but if these facts are even
remotely true, Kleiner is really a terrible place for women.

This married dude just harassing co-workers left and right. How gross.

Not inviting women partners to events. WTF?

Who are these guys? Is this 2015?

This guys webpage is almost a bigger crime than his alleged sexual
misbehavior: [http://www.ajitnazre.com/](http://www.ajitnazre.com/)

~~~
foobarqux
The irony is that Kleiner is one of the progressive firms. Sequoia doesn't
even have female general partners.

~~~
colmvp
They have an Asian partner in Alfred Lin and Middle Eastern partner in Omar
Hamoui. Both are racial minorities. That has to count for something in the
realm of diversity as racial and ethnic minorities face discrimination and
under-representation in many executive committees.

~~~
dredmorbius
Neither of those are cultures noted for their sensitivity to women.

------
hudibras
Because there may be some confusion here about what HR does, I'll pick one of
the less-salacious episodes, the RPX board seat issue, to illustrate how it
would play out at an organization which had a competent HR department.

First off, understand that discrimination based on sex or pregnancy is illegal
in the United States. So if Ellen Pao walked into our hypothetical competent
HR department and said that she had reason to believe that she's being
discriminated against, HR would have cleared somebody's schedule to work with
Ellen on this. It's serious shit, in other words.

HR would ask Ellen for everything on her side of the story (essentially the
same stuff that's coming out in court now), and then draft up a brief which
describes all the evidence (using the term "evidence" loosely here because
this is just Ellen's side for now). HR would then take this file to the person
who is allegedly discriminating against Ellen (I think it would be John Doerr
in this case) and say, "I need your undivided attention on this, this is a
serious matter" and then get John's side of the story.

After that, each situation is different, but it's pretty obvious to me that in
the RPX case, HR would say to John "Look, it appears that Ellen did much more
work on this than Randy so you need to think about why he got the board seat
over her."

In most workplaces, at this point John would look over the documentation and
realize that he probably DID discriminate against her and, most importantly,
would be aghast at what he'd done. So then HR would work with both Ellen and
John to develop a solution, which would probably include John apologizing to
Ellen for undervaluing her contribution and a promise that he'll do better in
the future. End Scene.

So in this scenario, not only does HR prevent a lawsuit from happening but
also the company gets to keep a valued employee who can keep adding to the
bottom line while at the same time educating her superior to keep better track
of the contributions of all employees regardless of their race, sex, or
background.

~~~
ownagefool
This is not what HR does. HR is there to present compliance while allowing the
company to do what it wants anyway. Randy would still have got the seat, but
competent HR would most likely have ensured an alternative reason be
presented.

------
peteretep

        > the firm was not fastidious about certain key aspects of 
        > HR and employment policy
    

HR is an expensive luxury, until it's not, and your dirty laundry is all over
TechCrunch. c.f. Github.

~~~
frandroid
Yeah, because KPC, that poor startup, really couldn't afford proper HR. :P

~~~
peteretep
Costs aren't always in straight dollars. Many people would consider HR to have
a bureaucracy and agility cost far beyond the amount it costs to hire an HR
staffer.

~~~
hudibras
One mystery to me is that I'm sure KPC has a general counsel, so I don't know
why their on-staff lawyers weren't sounding the alarm bell about the lack of a
competent HR department.

~~~
kijiki
Lawyers primarily highlight risks. It is easy to ignore them if you're
convinced "it couldn't happen here (tm)".

------
jakejake
“It was said that if there were women there, that the conversation would be
tempered, and it was because women kill the buzz”

What alternate planet are these guys living on? A mixed crowd is always more
interesting in my book, that goes for personal and professional get-togethers.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
FWIW women too like single sex gatherings.

Source: work in hospitality and get request for "no male servers" or specific
female hosts.

It seems in the OP that it's a social gathering??

~~~
jakejake
There's nothing wrong with a girls or guys night out. When it's a work-related
function that's quite a different story.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> When it's a work-related function //

Was it? It wasn't clear but seemed like it wasn't any more work-related than
work being the way the attendees met? Hence the question in my comment.

If it's work _sponsored_ (your work is paying for attendance) then you'd be
absolutely right. But if it's just a hen-do for work colleagues then men
wouldn't have a right to be there by virtue of employment; and vice-versa of
course.

------
guelo
Who are these people? Why do they get all the money from wall street and then
get to go around acting like they're gods? A monkey could have done a good job
of throwing money around Sillicon Valley and picking a bunch of winners over
the last 10 years. Why hire these prima donnas to do it? Wall Street is a
corrupt joke.

~~~
neindanke
> Who are these people?

Ellen Pao, Harvard MBA. Job history was corporate attorney, other non-
technical jobs.

Ajit Nazre, Michigan Tech PHD. Job history unclear. Google hits on him mostly
indicate a skeezy character. If the BI article is credible, most startups
including the ones in India have dropped him like a rock after the lawsuit
came out.

> Why do they get all the money?

Good question. Most engineers fail to realize how critical all of them are.
They fail to demand fair compensation for their time. Instead they treat pats-
on-the-back, a beer bust, maybe a gifted $10 ticket to see a scifi movie as
major rewards while their management takes the bulk of the compensation pie.

~~~
cowsandmilk
Ajit Nazre does not have a PhD from Michigan Tech, only a Masters.

He has a PhD from Technische Universität Hannover and an MBA from Harvard.

Ellen Pao has a JD from Harvard Law School in addition to her MBA.

~~~
jkestner
She also has an electrical engineering degree from Princeton.

~~~
mattgrice
I am curious what possible justification there could be for downvoting the
above comment. Is the EE degree in question?

~~~
jkestner
I mentioned it specifically because the grandparent post emphasized her "non-
technical" otherness.

------
conorh
Admittedly I'm not unbiased, having done work for KPCB (although I know
nothing about this case). However, I am extremely disappointed reading the
comments in this thread and in the media. People seem ready to jump to
conclusions and crucify having only heard one side of the story, I suppose
that makes for great stories in the media, but why not let the court case play
out and hear both sides first?

~~~
vasilipupkin
that certainly seems sensible on the surface, but I have to say, even if every
single thing Pao said is made up, the fact that they held an dinner party with
Vice President of the United States as the guest of honor and did not invite a
single female partner is pretty hard to explain in any sort of reasonable
fashion

~~~
conorh
Aha, see here you have extrapolated from the framing in the media headlines
(and the plaintiff), without actually looking at any context. So to look at
what you just said and present it differently: (note: I'm not coming down on
either side of this, just presenting the other side, see [1])

1\. He was not the Vice President of the United States then. He is (and was
then) a KPCB partner.

2\. He was not the guest of honor, this was a dinner party at his apartment
for the 10 people that could fit. Apparently he is fond of hosting dinners
there and does many of them. At this event there were only two KPCB partners.

Is it a stretch to imagine that two out of all the partners at KPCB for this
particular dinner might not include a female partner?

Also in Chien's testimony [2]:

Chien called the allegations in Pao’s lawsuit — including that he had declined
to invite women to the Al Gore dinner because women “kill the buzz” — “hurtful
and untrue,” and denied saying anything like that. Kleiner’s attorneys also
showed multiple emails where Chien invited Pao to join meetings and business
discussions she was interested in.

[1] [http://www.law360.com/articles/625265/kleiner-partner-
held-a...](http://www.law360.com/articles/625265/kleiner-partner-held-all-
male-al-gore-dinner-jury-told)

[2] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/02/25/kleiner-
per...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/02/25/kleiner-perkins-
trial-ski-trip-dinner-party/)

------
patmcguire
How on earth did this make it to trial? Is Kleiner Perkins crazy, or is Ellen
Pao making a point?

~~~
vasilipupkin
I agree, I am surprised they didn't quietly settle. The all male dinner party
with Al Gore alone is pretty damning, in my opinion.

~~~
jkestner
Perhaps the tone-deafness that led to ignoring the original issues also
applies to taking a lawsuit seriously.

------
Potando
Isn't this just office politics? It happens everywhere. It's not always
"because you're a woman" but there are always people who dislike others and
make it hard to do their job, don't invite them to work dinners, etc. That's
bad but it's equally bad for people everywhere. And it's legal.

~~~
huu
I think the point of the trial is to determine if what happened to Pao is
"because she's a woman". If there's enough evidence for that claim, then
there's a legal basis for recourse.

If we could sweep any exclusionary behavior under the rug of "just office
politics", there'd be no need for anti-discrimination laws in the first place.

~~~
Potando
It's sad that discrimination is fully acceptable and even encouraged by most
workplaces, as long as it doesn't touch on any of the hot reasons - sex, race,
religion = not OK. Nationality, personality, friends with boss = OK. I'd say
personality and religion are both pretty similar in how difficult they are to
change. So surely they should be treated similarly. The rules are just
arbitrary. It would be OK if Pao was a man and "his" boss just didn't like him
being a buzzkill at a party? Doesn't sound OK to me.

------
lnanek2
> “Matt Murphy said he had looked at the company before, and that the founding
> team ‘wasn’t business minded,’ and that they would not be able to generate
> revenues and create a sustainable business.”

This honestly seems dead on about the past Twitter. It wasn't until they
killed most of their API clients with enforcement bots and login token limits
and forced in advertising and required display formats that they were really
business minded. I don't think the article is helping to make it's point by
claiming it is incorrect.

------
lifeisstillgood
One quote stands out for me - "we're a small partnership". Now it could be bad
transcription by TC but that shows even after sueing them, Pao still thinks of
Kleiner as part of her.

It's hard to fake.

I feel sorry for her - she has a huge uphill slog ahead of her, and even if
she wins, her career is start on her own or move to growing oranges.

I look forward to hearing Pao associates making investments in female founded
businesses using money raised from female only investors.

Probably the only way to get taken seriously.

~~~
victorhooi
Not to take away from the merits of her case at all (which is still to be
decided), but she is probably not hurting for money.

She was earning what, $500,000 (i.e. half a million) a year at Kleiner?

The USD 16 million she's seeking in damages is for lost income (apparently she
could have earned up to $3 million a year if she got promoted at Kleiner).

Not to mention her current husband is Alphonse 'Buddy' Fletcher Jr, an ex-
hedge fund manager, who also sued his former employee in a $1.3 million
lawsuit for discrimination. (Ironically, he's also been sued himself by two
guys for sexual harassment, and apparently lost, but that was settled
privately, so we don't know how much that was for).

Either way, neither Pao nor her husband are hurting for cash.

All the players on both sides are probably living in some stratospheric world
that ordinary Joes like you and I probably can't even fathom.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
It really isn't the point. Yes she earns multiples more than me, but on the
partner track at kleiner she would expect to make millions. Chucking her out
because she is a woman (or gay or not white or whatever) is an offence. We
punish offences because that is what a fair society does. Even if the victim
is not sympathetic or "one of us".

In fact the last reason is the reason we have these laws - to defend people
who are not one of us.

Plus it is good to remind everyone once in a while that the law is in charge,
not money, not anti-terrorism sentiment, not administrations. The law.

It takes a battering, so it needs the occasional public win.

~~~
victorhooi
I think you need to re-read my comment again.

As I mentioned, the merits of her case haven't been decided in either
direction - let's all wait for the judgement.

However, I'm pointing out this whole ludicrous "she's one of us!", and
"occasional public win!" is pretty absurd.

Here in Australia, we love rooting for the underdog, but as I said, none of
the parties in this case are underdogs.

It's not like Kleiner is able to out-lawyer her. I mean, really? She's a
lawyer, married to a ex-hedge fund manager (who has previously successfully
sued for discrimination, and ironically been sued himself as well) - they have
oodles of experience, and millions to fund this to completion.

To me, this is just a case of two adversaries, slogging it out in a civil
case. Kleiner is trying to slant this as, office relationship gone wrong, and
Pao has sour grapes. Pao is trying to slant this as, company was out to get me
because I'm a woman, and they are a bunch of misogynistic pigs. If there was
wrong here, I'd want justice meted out to the wrongful party.

However, I don't for a minute think that Pao (or Kleiner) is on "my team", or
that either party represents the voice of the people.

They're just two rich parties, slogging it out, and we should hope that
justice will prevail.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
I was agreeing that she is outrageously well placed to take them on. She is
definitely "not one of us" if us are people with net worth below a couple of
million.

But ironically the laws she is using are there to defend individuals from
discrimination by those who might say that individual is "not one of us".

I do not see this as two rich adversaries, the outcome of which is of little
consequence or interest. I see this as an unusual example of one rich and
powerful interest (Kleiner) (who represents what apparently is a deep and
entrenched vein of misogyny in IT/VC and that vein has anecdotally been using
it's power to discriminate in this fashion and get away with it) _and_ an
alleged victim of discrimination who happens to be rich/powerful enough to put
up a fight.

I do happen to think that, like women only short lists, women only funds are
likely to be in our future.

~~~
victorhooi
Reading your comment, I suspect in many ways you have already decided on the
"right" and "wrong" party in your head (e.g. look at your description of
Kleiner).

I don't have a horse in this race, and nor have I pre-decided the outcome -
let's wait for the courts.

It could go either way - either somebody is crying wolf, or somebody
discriminated against an employee, and stopped their promotion.

It may take some time for this to churn through the courts, and an outcome to
be decided - I suspect much of the mob may already have moved on and lost
interest by then...lol.

And I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of your last sentence. There
wasn't any reasoning or context attached to the statement, so I'm not really
sure how I should reply.

------
gadders
If anyone is interesting in reading the Trial Brief from Kleiner Perkins, the
pdf is here: [http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/256174...](http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2015/02/256174979-Kleiner-Perkins-brief.pdf)

------
Rainymood
(1) Talk about clickbait title?

(2) While the issue is obviously very important: I feel like this post has a
bias. There is absolutely no information about her husband's hedge fund going
bankrupt, which seems to me like a motive to sue for money.

~~~
tomp
How is her needing money a relevant argument in deciding if her lawsuit has
merit?

------
pbreit
Curious timing:

5 Tips on Building an Amazing Team

[http://www.kpcb.com/blog/5-tips-on-building-an-amazing-
team](http://www.kpcb.com/blog/5-tips-on-building-an-amazing-team)

------
javert
I guess we need to start having all-female and all-male companies. It seems
like trying to have the sexes get along is becoming a huge legal liability and
not worth it.

~~~
mikeash
Much easier to just not be dickheads to the opposite sex. Plenty of workplaces
manage this just fine. The fact that this incident is abnormal enough to get a
lot of attention is encouraging.

~~~
javert
If I am an employer with 100 male employees, how do I ensure that none of
those 100 guys is a dickhead once? Plus, there is always a risk that a woman
will simply lie about some kind of harassment.

Much better to just not hire any females, or to have an all-female company and
not hire any males.

~~~
hudibras
"If I am an employer with 100 male employees, how do I ensure that none of
those 100 guys is a dickhead once?"

Shaking my head here...It's very simple: have a competent HR department.

a. The alleged dickhead does something.

b. The alleged victim feels comfortable taking the issue to HR.

c. HR does a complete, impartial investigation listening to both sides and
taking all factors into consideration.

d. HR recommends a course of action. In almost every initial case, this means
an informal mediation between the two individuals led by a trained mediator.

e. Company leadership follows the HR recommendation.

By the way, this is what most American companies do. It's not rocket science
and there's no need to re-invent the wheel.

~~~
Kalium
Bear in mind that most places, HR is trusted roughly as much as your average
scorpion. People dread the mere possibility of ever dealing with HR.

~~~
mikeash
Is it really "most places," or is it like many things where it's rare but
nobody talks about the nice interactions so you get a skewed impression?

(I haven't had any real job with an HR department so I have no direct
experience myself.)

~~~
Kalium
The general belief is that HR is there to protect the company from you. As a
result, HR is not generally expected to help you with your problems, and any
encounter with HR has a dramatically greater potential downside than potential
upside.

So in the interests of controlling risk, encounters with HR are to be limited.

------
the-dude
And again an Indian descendant in a sexual harassment case. Is this a bias or
a cultural thing?

------
smegel
Managers have been hitting on younger female subordinates/secretaries since
the invention of capitalism. I fail to see what this has to do with Valley
brogrammer culture (not that it doesn't exist). It wasn't even technically an
IT firm.

