
Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial - greenburger
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/23/technology/ellen-pao-suit-against-kleiner-perkins-heads-to-trial-with-big-potential-implications.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
======
mc32
So KPCB is retaliating with a civil lawsuit, claiming:

>“lacked the ability to lead others, build consensus and be a team player,
which is crucial to a successful career as a venture capital senior investing
partner.”

I won't pretend to know who did or said what, but language such as the above,
is so broad as to mean nothing.

It's typical HR verbiage used when they want to pressure someone to quit, or
get them outright fired. Whosoever presides over this, I hope they seek and
drill for specifics, and demands comparison with other partners' specific
performance, because on its surface, you can use this as an excuse to fire
anyone. And it's a particularly maddening symptom, which may not have an easy
solution. One person's "exceeds expectations", is the other person's, "failed
to meet expectations", it's totally arbitrary. With that filter, I can see how
one moment she's a star partner, the next she's accused of the above, as
retaliation.

~~~
tptacek
That's their claimed reason for (constructively) terminating her, right? It's
not the basis of an actual claim against Pao, but a defense of their own
actions.

It reads like standard HR speak for an exec termination.

~~~
mc32
Yes, that's correct, it's their defense. I think my claim is that this claim
is so broad as to be meaningless. It can retroactively apply to anyone because
it's very unspecific. My subtext is that because the language is so broad, it
can be used to excuse any firing, with or without cause. And they may cite
specifics, but in reality, they could come up with similar specifics and cause
for people who have not been fired.

It's somewhat similar to when there are explicit rules one must live or work
by, but then there are implicit rules to follow, which allow skirting of the
explicit rules. This then allows the implicit rules to be used against a
transgressor of choice, since they broke the explicit rules. And that aspect
makes it arbitrary.

~~~
tptacek
Reasons for termination usually are that broad. A broad explanation for a
constructive termination isn't a strong signal in any direction. A person
could be fired for gross incompetence, or for exploiting a conflict of
interest, or for a grave personal indiscretion, and if the company was forced
to announce that termination, they'd probably still be similarly broad.

Real companies are extremely cautious about publishing reasons for letting
people go.

Remember as well the real goalposts: US companies are not required to document
cause for terminating employees. The plaintiff in a discrimination suit bears
the burden of proving that they were terminated for a legally prohibited
reason. The defendant does not bear a burden of proving cause for termination.
Employees are routinely terminated without legal cause, and (controversial but
I think true) we're all better off for that.

~~~
mc32
Yes, but rightly or wrongly, the published reasons are broad so as to minimize
exposure to lawsuits. Meaning that if they had to be specific, they would have
less ability to fire people arbitrarily. They would have to have detailed
records on why someone was not up to par, rather than the nebulous, reasons
which are in common use these days and pass muster. Many times people are
singled out retroactively, ie., in retaliation, or simply not being of same
mind with new management or philosophy, irrespective of performance.

~~~
tptacek
It is explicitly acceptable in the US to fire people for nebulous reasons. We
have a "default allow" policy here for firing, which (among other things)
makes it much easier to start new companies, by lowering the stakes on hiring
people.

We all want the same good thing: the elimination of unfair employment actions.
But we should take a long view on how we obtain that good. Considering a more
Franco-European policy on employment, it's natural to think employment would
be more "fair". But employer policy wouldn't be static given that change;
they'd drastically alter both the way they accept new employees and the way
they track performance to compensate for it.

All that is just to say once again: you can't read too much out of a vague
explanation for why someone was terminated (or, in this case, "managed out").

~~~
mc32
I understand what's acceptable and normal. I just question why it's not
questioned from time to time to see if it merits change.

I'm looking at this from two sides. I've been an employee all my working life,
one day I would want to run a business, so I have that in mind too. And I
understand that sometimes one might want to fire someone 'just because'. It's
just that in principle, 'just because' rubs me wrong.

What I find ironic is that today's HR pretty much says "The reason we fired
you is we have no reason" And it's totally acceptable. Do you see how perverse
it's become. You can't state a reason for firing someone, because giving a
reason exposes you to lawsuits, so, giving no reason, has become a good reason
to fire people with.

PS. I've been fired once in my life, while working to put myself thru college.
Driver and I were making deliveries, it was late, he decided to skip the last
delivery. Upon arrival at the workplace "insubordination". Which was great,
got a better part time job after that.

------
joshlegs
My favorite part is this: """ Ms. Pao says a married colleague pressured her
into an affair and then retaliated against her when she broke it off. When she
complained, she says she was discriminated against and got poor reviews,
resulting ultimately in her dismissal. She accuses Kleiner of treating her
“despicably, maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively” from “an improper and
evil motive amounting to malice.” """

Sounds like classic blame-shifting to me.

~~~
tsotha
That tripped me up, too. A colleague "pressured her into an affair"? She might
have a beef if it was someone with power over her, but a colleague? When women
don't want to have affairs with colleagues they say "no".

Reads to me like she compromised her position at the firm and now she wants a
big payday. If that's the case, I wouldn't settle with her either.

~~~
lurkha
I was on her side until I read the part about being pressured into an affair.
Sexual harassment is a real, horrible thing. But an affair with a married
dude??? As an educated executive level woman??! That is some bs and poor
judgment. And unfortunately it casts poor light on the rest of her claims.

------
tmpacct1
I founded a KP backed company during those years. I'm not longer involved, so
I don't have a stake in this. Likewise, I don't have any specific knowledge of
the events.

At the partners' meeting and other interactions, Pao seemed uninterested and
out of place. Their culture seemed to be intense, friendly, joking debate. I
don't think it's a gender thing, as I remember Meeker and Lee being incredibly
helpful.

This whole thing made more sense to me when I read
[http://nypost.com/2012/06/11/of-love-and-lottsa-
lawsuits/](http://nypost.com/2012/06/11/of-love-and-lottsa-lawsuits/) and
[http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-
ny-h...](http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-hedgie-
buddy-fletcher/).

(To be fair, the alternate hypothesis is that they had already hurt her so
badly that she checked out b/c of their actions or that I just saw some off
days.)

~~~
rdl
I've Ellen Pao her in other contexts and found her incredibly engaged and
supportive, so it was probably specific to crap going on at KPCB.

She is one of the best VCs I've ever interacted with; it sounds like she had a
negative situation at KPCB (which hopefully the trial will resolve), but it
absolutely isn't about her competence and intelligence otherwise.

By all accounts she's also doing very well as an operator at Reddit.

~~~
mahranch
> By all accounts she's also doing very well as an operator at Reddit.

That's _completely the opposite_ of what the linked article claims. It says
that a reddit employee sent the defense a letter asking to subpena reddit
employees regarding conflicts with Ellen Pao.

~~~
rdl
Yeah, I guess I meant "by every Reddit employee I've talked to, and by
observing how much ass the site has been kicking since she joined, and
especially since she took over as CEO". It's certainly not exhaustively
researched, and I'd expect a company going through changes as massive as
Yishan/Ellen wrought (moving everyone to SF from remote, operating more like a
startup vs. a nonprofit, etc.), there'd be some discontent.

------
imroot
I'm really surprised that neither KPCB or Pao has settled this out of court.
It's going to be a nasty airing of dirty laundry across the board by the time
this thing is over...

~~~
nedwin
From the article it sounds like they tried to enter arbitration to settle the
matter but it was described as being "less than productive".

------
revelation
VC firms are to technology businesses as Berkshire Hathaway is to journalism
as owner of the The Buffalo News.

This is if anything an indictment of venture capital firms.

------
michaelochurch
I hope she wins, but this issue is a lot bigger than this one case, and what
we also need is a new law that holds investors responsible for the conduct of
the people they fund. Right now, they can fund frat boys and while the frat
boys get sued for sexual harassment or domestic abuse, the investors are scot-
free. Indeed, the appeal of Silicon Valley and VC is the disposable company.
(As in... don't like what has attached itself to your creation? Shoot it in
the head.) But this allows founder quality levels to reach an all-time low,
and it's time to reverse course by holding investors responsible for the
character of the people they fund.

~~~
joshu
Did something happen to you? This seems like an absurdly high bar.

~~~
jsmthrowaway
The better question to ask of Michael Church would be what _hasn 't_ happened
to him, from his perspective. (Then disregard his answer.)

------
gnu8
Which startups are breaking off with Kleiner Perkins over this? I want to know
which founders value their principles more than money.

~~~
hackles_raised
None of them if they have any sense. Would you expect them to act before a
verdict is given? That seems profoundly naive and self defeating.

------
mahranch
> _An anonymous Reddit employee sent a letter to Kleiner’s legal team, asking
> them to subpoena Reddit employees “for information regarding conflicts with
> Ellen Pao.”_

Wow. I had heard about the case, but didn't know the drama had sprawled over
to reddit. All things put aside, including my own biases, if I was reddit's
board, I'd get rid of her immediately. It doesn't matter whether if her claims
are justified, or even if she's 100% in the right (and Kliener was in the
wrong) - she's obviously a toxic presence and brought some of that toxicity
with her over to reddit.

~~~
davidu
Such strong language, and such vitriol.

If you really believe this, you need to recognize that sometimes the best
people are fleeing a bad situation -- a situation that they were a victim of.

I don't really know the details of what happened at KP, but I am not surprised
that discrimination (deliberate or otherwise) exists in venture capital. Did
it happen to her? I don't know. Will the real truth ever come out? Probably
not. Are there multiple versions of the real truth? Probably.

But you are calling for her termination. For something unrelated to her
current job. Her resume and academic achievements place her in the
exceptionally accomplished category, so to casually describe her as toxic,
without first-hand experiences, seems antagonistic and trollish, at best.

She can't control what an anonymous Reddit employee might or might not do.
That's no reason to fire her.

~~~
jgoah
His comment history is filled with him being far more rude than is necessary.
He's either a troll or an asshole. Sucks that he's here.

~~~
mahranch
Thanks for stalking me instead of taking my comment at face value (I wonder if
that's a new, evolving form of the ad hominem logical fallacy).

It's funny, actually. I've never seen so many downvotes flying on hackernews
as I have in this thread. Not my comment, this is actually my first downvoted
comment on this website in 2 years (which would contradict your claim of me
being "a troll"), but watching this thread proves it's a hot button issue for
many people.

I'm a "she" by the way. And no, my comment history isn't littered with rude
comments. I may speak frankly and honestly which is often confused with being
rude, especially to those who are extremely sensitive to such things, but the
hard truth should never be considered "rude", it should be welcomed. Warts and
all.

~~~
saraid216
If you want your truths welcomed, don't make them hard.

Is that a hard enough truth for you to swallow?

