
Kleiner Perkins Partner Ellen Pao Sues Firm for Gender Discrimination - protomyth
http://allthingsd.com/20120522/kleiner-perkins-partner-ellen-pao-sues-firm-for-gender-discrimination-over-sexual-harassment/
======
staunch
It sounds like the senior guys didn't take her complaints very seriously
because she had been in a relationship with the guy. It was only when
_another_ woman complained about the same guy that they got rid of him.

It also sounds like the firm is controlled by men who tend to favor men for
promotions and compensation.

Ultimately I think lawsuits like this are what will move the industry forward.
It forces complacent old powerful men to take young women seriously.

Hopefully she gets paid for her trouble and KPCB significantly improves their
environment for women.

~~~
temphn

      In the suit, Pao alleges that she was sexually harrassed 
      for years by Ajit Nazre, a former partner with the firm 
      who left last year. The two took a business trip together 
      in February 2006, the suit says, during which Nazre made 
      sexual advances toward Pao and she rebuffed them, causing 
      him to become “brusque and distant.”
    
      Nazre continued to pursue Pao and the two had a brief 
      relationship, which she broke off soon after, according to 
      the suit. 
    

"And the two had a brief relationship". Wait, so then it wasn't harassment?
During that time I'm sure she thought his persistence had paid off. It is all
too reminiscent of this satire:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY>

~~~
brown9-2
You seem to have missed this part of the article:

 _but after breaking things off with him, multiple Kleiner Perkins partners
and an outside human resources consultant allegedly ignored Pao’s complaints
about repeated harassment and retaliation, and rejected her requests to
transfer away from Nazre._

Having once been in a relationship with a person does not open the door to
continued harassment after the relationship is over.

~~~
badclient
Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no? I'd go as far to say
_significantly_ more complexity, especially if their break up was anything
like the average break up today and the ensuing drama--where depending on the
time of the day, each partner could be found guilty of harassment if they
chose to pursue.

On the larger topic of sexual harassment, I often wonder if there should be a
word for sexual harassment just as we have one for rape(where stop means
stop). With sexual harassment, seemingly normal conversation could be
construed as criminal.

Alas, don't shit where you eat.

~~~
brudgers
_"Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?"_

No.

Which means, no.

~~~
_debug_
Except it meant yes, for a while.

When she first said no, and he persisted, and then she acceded, she trained
him into believing that persistence pays off. So when she says no again, it
seems to me that it is almost mathematically predictable that he will re-
double his persistent efforts to win her back.

'no means no' does not apply when it sometimes means yes. With added
flakiness, 'no means no' means : 'no means yes once in a while, and no means
no when I feel like it, and you're a rapist and I'm still an angel if you
cannot figure it out'.

------
wizzard
The part where he boss tells her she should just give up and marry her
harasser (Fact 13) is gross.

Fact 29 is also pretty damning. If this is true, it's clearly not just a
problem with Ms. Pao in particular, but all women.

I agree with all the other posters who have said this is why you don't have
personal relationships with people at work. Especially not in the same group.

I do have trouble understanding the part where Nazre is continually harassing
her, so she just gives in and has a relationship with him, despite him
apparently being married. This is all kinds of wrong.

~~~
Natsu
> I do have trouble understanding the part where Nazre is continually
> harassing her, so she just gives in and has a relationship with him, despite
> him apparently being married. This is all kinds of wrong.

That's from the complaint. The weirdness shows that we haven't been told the
whole story yet.

Still, this whole thing is disturbing.

------
larrys
Interesting discrimination lawsuit by her husband last year:

[http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/the-money-manager-
who...](http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/the-money-manager-who-is-suing-
the-dakota/)

~~~
unreal37
The apartment building wouldn't let him buy a second unit, even though he's
worth $10's of millions. Something fishy for sure.

~~~
tomkarlo
A co-op like the Dakota (which is one of the oldest and most historic large
apartments buildings in New York) may be less than thrilled with having
someone own two units, especially if the intent is to do a bunch of renovation
and knocking down walls to join two adjacent units.

Given that the co-op board doesn't actually own the unit being sold, their
only option to stop that is to block the sale to him, and there's relatively
little cost to them. Even for the seller, it won't be that hard to find
another buyer so it's not a huge deal.

~~~
larrys
Actually in a coop the unit is owned by the association and you get the rights
to use it and I believe that is either defacto or dejure what gives them the
right to decide who gets to occupy it.

<http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/real-estate/condos1.asp>

\------------------------------------------------

<code> "In a cooperative says St. John, an attorney whose firm represents more
than 600 condominium, cooperative, and homeowner associations, the building
containing the residential units or apartments is owned by a 'cooperative
housing corporation.'"</code>

\------------------------------------------------

<code> "In a condominium, each unit owner owns an individual apartment in fee
simple. In addition, the buyer owns an undivided interest in the common
elements such as the exterior walls, roof, pool and other recreational areas."
</code>

\------------------------------------------------

Edit: Any idea why my code tags don't work?

~~~
tomkarlo
The co-op association legally owns the units, but the board and board-members
don't directly own the unit being sold.

I was trying to point out that the board members don't have much economic
incentive to approve a particular buyer - if the unit eventually sells for
less, it doesn't directly harm the occupants on the board unless one of them
is the seller.

------
mwexler
I suspect it's here because it ties into a) gender issues being a hot topic
among developers over the last few weeks here at HN, as well as b) the fact
that KP is a power player Silicon Valley and impacts the lives of many
startups.

Perhaps not developer-oriented, but certainly in line with recent posts here
on HN.

~~~
maybird
Indeed. I hope "brogrammers" take note.

~~~
SeoxyS
You can be a "brogrammer" and be outraged at this all the same, you know… Your
association of brogrammer == sexist is just as offensive and discriminatory as
the attitude you accuse all brogrammers to have towards women.

~~~
tomjen3
I am outraged at this.

No company should have to suffer employees doing stupid things like this.

If she wants to sue over his behavior, why not sue him?

Oh right, who has the most money?

~~~
ebf
If the company allowed the discrimination and harassment to occur even after
several complaints, why shouldn't they be held liable?

------
candre717
I respect and admire her courage and bravery to do what's right, in light of
her career.

~~~
natrius
Isn't that a bit premature? It may be a civil case, but presuming innocence
until proven otherwise is still a pretty good policy.

~~~
candre717
You're right, and I had that very thought in mind that these are just
allegations. And, anyone familiar with the justice system should be cognizant
of that by default.

My point is that she's seriously jeopardizing her career and everything she's
worked for professionally by bringing these issues to the forefront. Whatever
outcome occurs, Kleiner Perkins will still be standing.

That is a big sacrifice for a chance at a "payout" or validating some feminist
rhetoric.

------
jordo37
It seems to me that the significant allegation in this case is the fact that
she asked to be moved and KP said no.

I believe some of the other details are incriminating as well and in the end
it doesn't matter that she had a relationship Nazre, but as soon as something
like this is muddied many people will say its complicated and therefore not
worth the time to look at it.

But, no matter these other details, she felt uncomfortable and asked not for
retribution, but to sacrifice her current role in order to escape an
uncomfortable situation and KP said NO. That seems unacceptable to me.

------
lukejduncan
Never have relationships with people at work. Avoid the ambiguity. You're
colleagues. Period.

~~~
xbryanx
Sure, that might be good advice, but such absolutism isn't viable as a
workplace system. Research into propinquity
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propinquity>) tells us that romantic
relationships are actually quite likely in the workplace. We should develop
systems that handle this less-than-ideal(sometimes) behaviors. One of those
systems is anti-discrimination law.

~~~
iy56
There was even another recent HN submission in the same spirit:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4005906>

Smoking is forbidden on airplanes. But if someone does smoke, it's better that
they have an ashtray available rather than starting a fire by trying to
dispose of the ashes improperly.

------
alain94040
How does this relate to John Doerr's quote that "[The world’s greatest
entrepreneurs] all seem to be white, male, nerds".

I'd love to be running discovery for this case. How likely is it that someone,
once, wrote something really stupid in an e-mail between senior partners,
regarding Pao's allegations?

------
kogir
Her side of the story sounds awful, and to the extent it's true KP's inaction
and behavior is despicable.

I'm curious why she stayed though. VCs move between firms in the valley not
irregularly, leaving previous firms on both positive and negative notes. My
top two guesses are that either she wasn't able to find anything else, or she
wanted to stick it to them by collecting enough evidence to win this case.

Both make me sad - the former because it means everyone else was blind to her
apparent talent, and the latter because even if she wins this she'll never get
that time she was miserable back.

I hope that the truth comes out and justice is served, but can't help
wondering if success elsewhere might have been the best revenge.

~~~
melindajb
Actually most VCs do not switch firms. This was made clear by Ann Winblad in
her epic TED talk located here: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HybHcXGvrGM>

If you spent your whole life to reach the top of your profession, you wouldn't
want to walk away just because some douchebag was harassing you.

Many women do just what you suggest, which is right on an individual level but
doesn't help the cause of the gender. Ms. Pao, as a wealthy and successful
woman has the opportunity to change the game. And the resources to fight a
firm with very deep pockets. If people who make it don't fight to change the
system, who will?

------
chernevik
Maybe it's just how such briefs are written but this thing doesn't seem to lay
out evidence or argument that she should have been promoted and bonused. Nor
does it trouble itself anticipating obvious benign explanations -- she wasn't
good at her job, didn't work hard, etc. Doesn't she have to make some showing
that her performance merited the compensation denied her?

~~~
wizzard
It's going to be more difficult to prove performance when her performance
reviews for the past few years are being challenged. At any rate, I'm sure
merit will be discussed during the trial. IANAL but the brief is supposed to
be a list of complaints, not a hagiography of the plaintiff.

------
FrankRiedel
Wait a minute. If Ellen is married, why was she having sex with colleagues at
her firm?

------
silverlake
In the complaint, page 10, line 3. Chi-Hua Chien organized a dinner for
partners and explicitly excluded women because "they would kill the buzz."

Reading the complaint shows that KPCB was following the standard playbook for
removing an employee cleanly. A lesson for the kids out there: HR works for
the company, not for you. Never reveal anything to HR.

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/94433811/Kleiner-Perkins-Ellen-Pao>

------
huhtenberg
True Hacker News!

------
onetime555
Here's what I know:

1\. She's beautiful, smart, terrific, and reasonable

2\. Her husband is extremely wealthy, so this isn't about money

3\. Her husband sued the Dakota building for discrimination (she lives in SF,
he lives there, they commute between)

Make of that what you will.

