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.
If my wife's boss had told her this story, she'd have come home with exactly the impression Ms. Pao did. Indeed, when we were in grad school something very similar happened. She went to a career counselor to talk about job searching, and she remarked that "oh at least your boyfriend (me) has a good job lined up." As someone in a relative position of power, there is little more you can do to make an ambitious woman feel like shit than remind her that society values her husband/boyfriend's ambition much more highly than hers.
 This may be true for both genders.
First I like to say the paper's statistics and analysis based on the data they use seem pretty good to me.
But . . .
However I find the paper disappointing personally.
I'm not sure how much information is useful to me since the data they use is survey results from 1996, I don't think that's a good indicator of behavior in 2015, as women have been in the workplace for nearly 20 years since then(1996).
I'm not sure if I read it right, but here is what that
paper says :
"We relied upon data for the year 1996, a year that contained survey items related to our predictor and criterion variables. Specifically, we included only
heterosexual, married men in our sample because we
were interested in the association between heterosexual marriage structures and men’s attitudes toward working women. Our final sample size consisted of 282 men who were married and employed full time. "
Women had been in the workplace for many decades before then, so while things may have changed since then to some degree, I wouldn't assume that it is the case due to time.
OTOH, as the quote you supply indicates, the study was limited to heterosexual married men, which may be a smaller share of all men in the workplace now, so even if the effect observed has not changed, its workplace significance may have.
Be interesting to do a followup that included people in committed relationships of different legal statuses, different genders, and different orientations and see whether the effect is still visible and how it relates to different axes of variation.
I agree with you its not just time changing things, but the fact the culture changes with time. While we can debate what parts of the culture changed, its very clear the culture has changed.
20 years is enough for a new generation of men and women to grow up under a different culture. It also may be enough time to allow people to get used to new normal and adjust their behavior.
That is my reasoning for my belief to doubt the validity of that data in a 2015 context and still believing it's probably accurate in a 1996 context.
If we could get actual data from 2015, I'd update my beliefs.
Otherwise I think it's wiser to remain skeptical of that data in a modern context.
Sorry for being dumb. I didn't realize they had split the the methods across surveys.
It seems survey 5 supports my thoughts. It really deals with changes in age groups.
The paper says:
"the Wald criterion demonstrated that only age made a significant contribution to predicting if men were in modern marriages, with younger men more likely to marry
In figure 2, they mention men in modern marriages, had positive reception to women in the workforce.
I think its fair to say the younger generation of men is fine with women in the workplace.
Also, female labor force participation rate is pretty much the same as it was in 1990.
Here's Re/code's report on the cross-examination, which seems to identify a number of contradictions in Pao's accounts over time:
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...
frequent practice back in USSR. To the HR of the factory/institution, to the local Party committee, etc... :)
the fewer conclusions we all jump to the better
So it's OK for Lane to make assumptions about Pao, but we must be very careful not to make assumptions about Lane?
The was no "again".
It was on, she found he lied, and the it was off "with extreme prejudice" as the old Unix manuals used to say.
> Pao said that once Nazre had told her that he and his wife had indeed separated, they started “seeing each other” in an “off-and-on relationship that lasted between five and six months.”
If a Michael Arrington - a major power broker in the Valley , by any measure of the use of the term - was not immune to this rush to judgment in the Jenn Allen case , I guess expecting the innocent-until-proven-otherwise rationale to be applied to some small-fry immigrant is too much to ask.
Fifteen Months Later
Letter To Jennifer Allen Regarding False and Defamatory Statements
EDIT to add the workplace parameter for clarity.
He could have addressed that without ever mentioning that his wife had quit working at Oracle; bringing that fact in created an inference, even if not intentional, that one of Pao or Nazre would have to go, or he could have added that the situations were in fact totally different.
Sure, he shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think anybody argues that it was a smart thing to do.
On a side note, Lane is ?20 years older than Pao; I'm surprised he hadn't developed the emotional intelligence to ensure that they were both on the same page when she left his office. I mean, when people discuss things like intimate relationships, there's often a lot left unsaid so it's important to solicit feedback on whether your advice is actually responsive to the concerns that the colleague came in the door with.
This glosses over a significant problem. Partners are stratified like professors at univesrity.
The issue about resolving any conflict by the junior-status person taking up with a new employer is not controversial. Its basically common practice and common sense.
So there is no real crux to this other than someone stating the obvious.
The logic is the same if the senior person is of either sex. Once you cross the line of having a marriage you have a legal obligation to that person that can create a conflict of interest. You also have a lack-of-diversity in income that could cause a cascading financial issue if that conflict of interest ever materialized in an adverse way.
So, by resignation and re-employment with anotehr firm you eliminate the conflict and diversify the income base. You do this whist protecting the largest income stream with the lowest risk strategy (doing nothing) and by taking the risk (of change/finding a new job) with the smaller (and by implication less valuable) revenue stream.
Again, has nothing to do with sexism. The roles could easily be reversed and the logic would still be the same.
Junior partner is like "associate", its almost meaningless if you are relying on that solely for assement long term career prospects (or whatever).
(eg, in a law firm, associate pay varies widely...even with the same title...promotion track of any particular associate is completely non-transpaternt... etc)
What in the world was going through this guy's head?
According to the saying, "don't shit where you eat", both of them could have known better before starting their relationship.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Pao discontinued the relationship, then Nazre started cutting her out of work. It's pretty easy to see a case that submitting to the sexual relationship was implicitly a term of her employment in the same role, or that after the relationship was discontinued her working environment became hostile.
Sexual harassment requires (by the definition you cite) things of a a sexual nature to be integral to the harassment.
But that's not the same thing as assigning somebody busy work or whatever. That's just being an a$$hat of a colleague.
Per your definition:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment ===when===
-submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
-submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
-such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 )
Lots of people are jerks at work, and lots of people are jerks to their ex, but neither are per-se sexual harassment under the third bullet point.
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:
I am little surprised that a VC is not firing people for doing this. Just strikes me as a huge liability and a great way to drive talent out of the shop.
It isn't. However, when the count is 0, it is a pretty good indication of a _lack_ of progressiveness.
I've yet to see the research which indicates that we should see an even mix of men and women at the top of social structures when we already admit a difference in terms of both physical ability (eg, why we separate sports) and behaviors (eg, men tend to be more risk taking). For that matter, many distributions that we see which have no obvious component have different distributions between the two genders. For example, women often average a bit higher, but have fewer outliers (in both directions) when scored on intelligence.
I don't believe that there is no gender based component to behaviors (ie, that there isn't a gender based distinction in the distribution of normal behaviors for the two genders), and even a very slight distinction would become significant after rounds of selecting the outlier candidate over and over for promotion.
In much the same way that we see a dominance of men in athletic events, we might be seeing that in corporate leadership positions.
The reason that we want to see this is that we have thousands of years of evidence that when group A has more power than group B it tends to end really badly for group B. See: slavery, capitalism, the patriarchy, colonialism... etc.
> admit a difference in terms of both physical ability (eg, why we separate sports)
That's spurious. Physical ability is not at all important for competency in most of the high paying and powerful roles of society. If physical ability were important then the CEOs, bankers and politicians of the world would be young men rather than old white men.
> and behaviors (eg, men tend to be more risk taking)
It's very hard to prove that different behaviours between the genders are a result of biochemistry (that we can't control) as opposed to social conditioning (that we can control). Most of the behaviours that people think of as "feminine" or "masculine" are learned rather than innate. One example (competitiveness) is outlined in this Freakonomics podcast: http://freakonomics.com/2013/10/09/what-can-a-ball-and-a-buc...
For links to some investment studies, see http://www.thestreet.com/story/13018257/1/who-had-bigger-inv... , http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/behavioral-economics-...
A board of a well known tech company is composed of 3 women, and 6 men. By your metric, that's progressiveness. After all, a third are women. Greater than 0.
Now what if all of them are white. Is that progressive when the population of the U.S. also includes Hispanics, Asians (who make up a sizable % of the tech industry), and Blacks but the board contains none? As a visible minority, I say yes, because women are under-represented and it's fine if sometimes other ethnicities aren't represented.
So by one metric it's not progressive/diverse, but by another it is.
Likewise, if a group happens to be all male but contains visible minorities, is that not an example of being progressive? It's not as if North America is completely color blind and minorities don't endure exclusion from a variety of groups ranging from executive positions to judicial positions to political representation in North America. Being white and male in North America carries a privilege very unlike being Black/Asian/Hispanic and male.
And so yes, I sound like a broken record on this thread but it irks me when people only judge by gender, when ethnicity is a consideration here in the U.S. And when I look at the partners, they have some visible minorities.
But most importantly, when I read their bios, they are clearly very qualified.
It is incredibly simplistic.
> A board of a well known tech company is composed of 3 women, and 6 men. By your metric, that's progressiveness.
No it is not. I made no assertions about that context. My assertion was that when there are NO women in the room, that is an indication of a _lack_ of progressiveness. Even that has some obvious caveats, as for small numbers of people (like say... 1), it wouldn't mean anything... but my assertion already concedes that you could have half or more than half the room be made up of women and still not be at all progressive.
Just because you aren't racist doesn't give you the right to be sexist (being blunt but the idea is there).
Additionally Nazre has a history of sexually harassing female coworkers so at this point it's looking pretty cut and dry.
This dude really likes his name.
then dating the guy after he claims his marriage fell apart.... how dumb is that?
i'm not going to defend his behaviour or any of the other clearly bullshit sexism here, but in the case of this guy misbehaving it is in a very large part enabled by women in a combination of not standing up for themselves and sleeping with a jerk.
you can't just ask everyone around you to stop this stuff if you are actively encouraging it yourself. it has to work both ways.
if he had no success he would learn from the constant rejection. a big problem is that for men, acceptance is so rare that one instance of sex is enough to validate the entire path that lead to it. so they will continue the same behaviour if it leads to any success whatsoever...
(i'm being serious. i can't learn without feedback, and clearly i am wrong, i just have no idea why)
Hindsight is often blinding. It's easy to read this article and say that if Pao had simply chosen not to date him then none of this would've happened. I think that criticism lacks perspective. Should she have chosen to work at a different firm? That would also have avoided this situation.
People's decisions are based on the information available to them at the time, including both their assumptions about the world and their past experiences. If their assumptions turn out to be wrong or they lack a previous negative experience to inform them they may well make a decision that others later point at and say was ill-advised. It's crucial to understand that even if the decision was a poor one, more often than not the person had no way of knowing that at the time.
 For instance, "partners at Kleiner-Perkins will act professionally in the workplace, regardless of personal misgivings"
 One which Pao has now gained w.r.t. office romances.
> clearly i am wrong, i just have no idea why
This is the line that prompted me to respond to your post. I disagree with you, and I have explained why above. I do not like this attitude, though - just because others disagree with you does not mean you are wrong. It is important not to discount your own opinion, especially on the Internet. Read what others have said in this thread, think critically about their views as well as your own and see where you end up.
Or he would have not taken no for an answer and kept trying.That last is strongly suggested by the fact that he came on to her, got told "no, you are married", made up this whole elaborate lie of a separation, got told "no, you should reconcile", and then kept the lie rolling long enough that Ms Pao figured he was separated for real. This guy is as persistent as Pepe le Pew.
thanks for the honest reply. you offer a reasonable assessment, as much as i disagree that victim blaming is universally wrong.
this man is responsible for his own actions, and that the bulk of the accusations here are serious regardless as to that behaviour.
however, i think its damaging to the cause of preventing sexual harassment in the workplace if women do not consistently treat all men as equal in this regard - regardless as to how attractive they find them at the time (and e.g. coupled with how married they are)... it seems to me that it makes it impossible to set objective standards.
>>in the case of this guy misbehaving it is in a very large part enabled by women in a combination of not standing up for themselves and sleeping with a jerk. you can't just ask everyone around you to stop this stuff if you are actively encouraging it yourself. it has to work both ways.
Same person right?
This married dude just harassing co-workers left and right.
Workplace affairs aside, what is the indubitable proof to suggest that these things transpired owing to malice, on his part?
Has he testified, yet?
This reminds me of the Michael Arrington case , of people rushing to judgments.
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.
> the firm was not fastidious about certain key aspects of
> HR and employment policy
Only "bad HR" would have that side effect. Good HR is a wonderful, wonderful thing. I've seen both sides. Btw, good HR isn't just about the HR people. It's about good HR people and a CEO/COO that wants them to succeed.
But, seriously, how do you, or anyone, actually do it? Humans are NP-hard in that regard. You will most likely only know a potato is hot once you are holding it in your hand. By then, it's already too late.
i wish facebook had a 'dislike' button too, and twitter a public ignore count with how many people chose to ignore a stream...
you can't learn with only positive feedback (assuming your brain is mostly neural network) we need the negative too. its a shame our current society is so stuck on protecting people from criticism...
People like to jump on the bandwagon when someone "evil" is identified, based sometimes on the flimsiest of evidence. Then, surprise -- if you have millions of "racist-hating" people online who think they've found a racist (or whatever), some of them will retaliate in truly vile ways.
Imagine for a moment that your friend plays a practical joke on you, and posts a stupid sexist comment on twitter as you. And suddenly your employer is getting a dozen calls a minute demanding you be fired, and your home address and yearbook photos and who knows what else are collected and published online. And... it's hard to know when it would stop, but "justice" on the internet is a very, very poor tool at present.
Even at low-scale: just imagine how the typical group of "popular" girls in middle school might decide to use a Facebook "Dislike" button against this week's chosen unpopular girl.
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.
And do they think that they're going to have a meeting with the former Vice President of the United States and he's not going to notice that there's no women in the room and not think that something's amiss?
I've been in meet-and-greet style meetings with VPOTUS-level U.S. government officials and outside Silicon Valley it's exactly the opposite: we make sure that there's a representative sample of our employees and not just a bunch of senior guys.
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??
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.
I'm not defending the practice, but I can see how it's not that strange that a gender would feel safer or at ease in a gender exclusive setting.
Some people do not (but should) think rational when dealing with the subject of gender diversity.
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.
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.
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 :
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In 2010 allegations arose that he couldn't afford to pay his mortgage and in 2011 one of his major sources of capital for his hedge fund requested that he return their funds. They're now suing him.
The timeline is that just as his legal/financial issues reach a crescendo Ellen files a lawsuit.
Personally I think they're more than likely unrelated but it's unfortunate timing.
Good point on the "we" though.
(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.
5 Tips on Building an Amazing Team
However, I don't think your phrase applies to anything else about this case, hence the downvotes if people interpreted it differently than me... :)
The case could stand on its own without those events -- I think it's within good decency to point out the danger/distraction of these lateral issues.
Most people keep their work and personal lives somewhat separate for a reason.
Another fact: it would also be simpler had she not been (allegedly) lied to about the marriage status of the co-worker.
If all of this is true, and it was the ethical baseline for co-worker relationships, what's the ethical baseline for client relationships?
No, I think we're just going to have to figure out how to get along.
Much better to just not hire any females, or to have an all-female company and not hire any males.
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.
(I haven't had any real job with an HR department so I have no direct experience myself.)
So in the interests of controlling risk, encounters with HR are to be limited.
But yeah, I am really just trying to make a broader point that I think people should just part ways when they have personal disagreements, rather than sue one another. And I think the law should reflect that expectation, rather than working the way it works now.
It is a reductio ad absurdum (having all-male or all-female companies is the absurdum).
If it is real, what evidence did you feed into your reasoning process? There are apparently lots of places where men and women do work together without issue, so I wonder how you are weighting that.
It seems odd though if that's still the case, after all these years.
What really screws up this tale is -- it's not a case of "unwanted advances."
The fact that she says 'he made repeated unwanted advances' is simply NOT TRUE.
I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true. If you're aware of the history of what transpired for the entire length of time that Pao and Nazre you already know she's a liar.
If I was on the KPCB legal team, I'd have to point out this fallacious claim she's made.
Once you can show that a complainant is a liar -- it will destroy the rest of their case. If the complainant is willing to go on record and make a false statement to the court -- it's game over.
Pao and Nazre ended up in a relationship so those advances were only part of the courting process. He was a dick for lying about his spouse but lying to get into a relationship isn't illegal.
What's in front of the jury is whether there was misconduct company and its employees in handling the situation post Pao-Nazre breakup.
But stay tuned to the case -- although attorneys know to drag things out to generate billable hours, eventually this will come up in the case. If you re-read the complaint, with decent reading comprehension you'll get it.
HINT: "I came to HR because I'm being harassed by a male colleague that I'm never, ever going to date in any way shape or form, and he still keeps making advances, he won't stop, I need help from the company."
Now that would be a solid case.
Just going out on a limb, but it sounds like you might be trying to say: I know this to be objectively true, but there is no way for me to prove it to you.
That is a common situation that we as humans don't seem to have a name for, but probably should.
(FYI, I did not downvote... in fact I upvoted your comment.)
The complaint/lawsuit from Pao is: "Nazre was harrassing me. And KPCB wouldn't do anything about it. That's gender discrimination."
HERE ARE THE FACTS.
1) she had a consensual relationship with Nazre.
2) when she complained she was being 'harrassed', John Doerr -- the main guy at KPCB -- was going to fire Nazre. But Pao talked the company out of that.
At each step in her construction of a possible lawsuit, she was complicit. Dated Nazre. Complained about Nazre after they split. Petitioned KPCB not to fire Nazre.
It's all a load of crap from the outset. If this was a clean case, where the complainant had zero complicity, ie. "a coworker is making unwanted advances" and the firm did nothing, well okay. But that's not what happened.
"After learning [from Pao] of Nazre's behavior, Doerr was angry with him and wanted to fire him. But Pao opposed, sending e-mails to senior partners urging them to help Nazre rather than fire him."