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.
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:
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.
It does not excuse the behavior, but it may very well be that coworkers who broke off a relationship are more likely to falsely accuse each other of harassment and/or overreact to innocent or trivial incidents. It may not be true in this case, but if it's true in general, it is a reasonable factor in evaluating how they reacted to her complaints.
Yes, because I can recognize factors that may reasonably influence whether you should take someone's complaints of harassment at face value, I am clearly advocating rape.
I'm not asking you to take them at face value, I'm asking you simply to consider them at all without immediately jumping to possible alternative explanations of the same set of facts that are a lot more complicated than the original one, that she claims that she was harassed and then ignored and that was the end of it.
Occam's razor and all that.
Harassment does happen, and in cases like this the person that steps up has enough problems on their hand without being dealt more crap.
The prior situation has no bearing on what she claims happened, it either did or it did not, and even if it did not the complaint should have been taken serious.
So we're not even getting to 'taking the complaints at face value', we're simply establishing that she claims that her complaints were ignored. That's a pretty low bar to have to jump over, if someone claims sexual harassment and you ignore them then you're simply wrong, regardless of whether or not the complaint is true.
Do you agree that Occam's razor slices differently for others? For example, if you agree that women are human beings, you also agree that they are just as prone to any human to misrepresent the facts in their favor. And Ms. Pao stands to make a great deal of money from this suit if it goes through.
I'm not a VC, but, to be comprehensive, you'll need to put the negative impact of the suit publicity - whether she wins or loses - on her career against what she might gain by winning.
If you sue McDonald's for food poisoning frivolously, have the bucks to do so, and are somehow immunized against a countersuit, there's no downside.
Pao, win or lose, is going to have a very different VC career than if she never filed suit. That's a pretty big downside.
The harassment incidents to me honestly don't seem to be the most relevant part of the lawsuit. HR ignores your complaint, yes it is wrong; people make mistakes occasionally, it isn't a lawsuit situation, it's a "send another complaint" situation (or "contact the director"). HR repeatedly or even systematically ignores complaints and you start to have to do something about it.
But the unequal pay, promotions, projects, and participation? That is a rather unequivocal situation.
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.
"Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?"
Was thinking the same thing. Also a psychological component, intermittent reinforcement. She had rebuffed him and then agreed to have sex 2 or 3 times. Who knows over what period that happened and whether there was any rebuff in between the sexual events. After all, he persisted and to away with it at least one time after being rejected.
(Not agreeing his behavior was proper obviously just pointing this out.)
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'.
It does make the situation more complex, but sexual harassment isn't black and white. There is a huge difference between investigating a harassment claim and determining that no harassment took place and completely ignoring it.
Sexual harassment is against the law, but it isn't a crime (at least in California). A DA wouldn't be involved unless it went well past sexual harassment into assault or stalking.
Or she felt pressured and felt that a short relationship might be the answer to her woes. Or she might have felt a thousand other plausible thing that do not detract from the substance of this case; she and other women were discriminated against in substantive, measurable ways and when she sought help for she was sidelined.
Here's the actual text of the lawsuit;
In February 2006 Plaintiff and another Junior Partner,
Ajit Nazre, went on a business trip to Germany. Mr. Nazre
had the same job title as Plaintiff, but had been with
the firm since 2003, two years longer than Plaintiff, and
directed some of her work, including the Germany trip.
Mr. Nazre made inappropriate sexual approaches to
Plaintiff on that trip. She rebuffed his advances.
Mr. Nazre responded to her rebuff of his advances by
becoming brusque and distant. He also had strong
influence over how other partners at the firm would view
Plaintiff, specifically Ray Lane, a Managing Partner and
Mr. Nazre's sponsor and mentor. From March to October
2006, Mr. Nazre continued to pressure Plaintiff to have
a sexual relationship with him. Mr. Nazre falsely told
her that this wife had left him. When Plaintiff refused
his advances, Mr. Nazre engaged in offensive, obstructionist
and difficult behaviour toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff eventually
succumbed to Mr. Nazre's insistence on sexual relations
on two or three occasions. In October 2006 Plaintiff
informed Mr. Nazre that she would no longer have a personal
relationship with him. Mr. Nazre started a consistent
pattern of retaliation against her.
This suit will make a lot of people uncomfortable and that's a good thing.
Plaintiff eventually succumbed to Mr. Nazre's insistence on sexual relations on two or three occasions.
The fact that she is pursuing this as a civil case already tells us that they didn't have enough for a criminal one. If the above was indeed true, it is a criminal case.
Or she felt pressured and felt that a short relationship might be the answer to her woes
_Feeling_ x does not automatically entitle you to winning a case for sexual harassment nor does it make for much evidence.
I'll wait for the evidence, so far I haven't seen it... which is reasonable given the suit was just filed. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume innocence.
> _Feeling_ x does not automatically entitle you to winning a case for sexual harassment nor does it make for much evidence.
The parent was merely responding to the suggestion that if the two had slept together, that excuses behavior that would otherwise have been harassment. Having slept with someone definitely doesn't entitle you to sexually harass them. The merits of the claims have yet to be seen, but you can't just dismiss them out of hand by saying, "Oh, but she slept with him."
If we subtract the questions of innocence and guilt the fact remains that KPCB failed to address these concerns in a responsible manner and chose to make attempts at silencing her in various ways.
Her written review included the words;
The number of issues and clashes with your peers and
other partners that were discussed last year has
decreased quite a bit, but acceptance by this group
is still not evident.
It is important to assume innocence, but allowing the presumption of innocence to cloud the clear merits of this case is a mistake.
the fact remains that KPCB failed to address these concerns in a responsible manner and chose to make attempts at silencing her in various ways
Without knowing more details, how can you state the above so confidently?
You cite a few sentences from a review which are pretty hard to interpret without context. You are hinting that the word "acceptance" points at a conspiracy by The Group against women or this woman. I have no idea how you can be convinced of that merely by reading the contents of the initial filing.
Without knowing more details, how can you state the above so confidently?
It's safe to assume that Ellen is a smart woman who realises the risk this poses to her career, and any smart person wouldn't wish to burn the progress they have made over years for some mythical "pay day." That's why I can say with some amount of confidence that KPCB failed to address concerns in a responsible manner and let things come this far.
To quote from the filing;
Upon information and belief, Ray Lane and John Doerr discussed
how to respond to to Plaintiff. Ray Lane met with Plaintiff.
While acknowledging that Mr. Nazre's behavior was inappropriate
Mr. Lane pressured Plaintiff to drop the matter because of
Mr. Lane''s close ties with and mentorship of Mr. Nazre.
Though Plaintiff had formally cmplained about Mr. Nazre's behavior,
Mr. Lane encouraged Plaintiff to engage in a personal relationship
with Mr. Nazre and even to marry him. Mr. Lane said, however,
that in such case, either Plaintiff or Mr. Nazre would have to
leave the firm because two spouses could not work together at KPCB.
Mr. Lane said he and Mr. Nazre had discussed Plaintiff's report
of sexual harrassment.
KPCB was aware of and did not take reasonable steps to prevent
retaliation and gender discrimination. KPC management was aware
of and did not prevent Mr. Nazre from engaging in repeated
retaliatory behavior for nearly five years. Following her formal
complaint described above, Ray Lane insisted that Plaintiff
have a one-on-one lunch with Mr. Nazre outside the office
to discuss their relationship. Plaintiff saw no choice but
to comply with the demand of a Managing Partner. Unsurprisingly,
Mr. Nazre made inappropriate comments and engaged in unprofessional
behavior, and seemed to be further empowered by KPCB to further
retaliate against her.
... and we wonder why there aren't more women in tech.
Which really doesn't give much of an indication of the merits of the case. DA's have budgets (i.e. X number of cases to pursue) too and may think their priorities would best be served by this case remaining in a civil court.
How on earth are they mutually exclusive? A nontrivial number of rape victims become bullied/manipulated into relationships with their assailants. Not sure if you're saying that excuses the crime.
"From March to October 2006, Mr. Nazre continued to pressure Plaintiff to have sexual relationship with him. Mr. Nazre falsely told her that his wife had left him. When Plaintiff refused his advances Mr.Nazre engaged in offensive, obstructionist and difficult behavior toward Plaintiff. Plaintiff eventually succumbed to Mr. Nazre's insistence on sexual relations on two or three occasions. In October 2006 Plaintiff informed Mr.Nazre that she would no longer have any personal relationship with him. Mr. Nazre started a consistent pattern of retaliation against her."
Much more reasonable interpretation: he didn't leave his wife for her, so she got angry and threatened to destroy him. A jilted lover story line makes a lot more sense than a "harass into having sex two or three times" story. No physical force is alleged, no police report was filed, no kidnapping occurred. This is something she only felt bad about after things ended. It sure isn't what normal people perceive as "harassment" if it was reciprocated with "two or three" episodes of sex (because who's counting!)
Future civilizations are going to look at our bizarre notions regarding sex like we looked at the notions of the Victorians.
Disregarding how "much more reasonable" this interpretation is, there's a lot of space between "no physical force" and "something she only felt bad about after things ended". Jumping to the latter conclusion and implying promiscuity on her part ("because who's counting!") is completely unfair.
We should presume that Mr. Nazre is innocent and not attack his character. We should also do the same for Ms. Pao.
What the fuck have people in this thread been drinking? It could be harassment if they'd had sex a hundred times, or no times, if they'd been married, or if they'd never met before. The sex isn't the issue here! Pause for a second, and think critically about the issue, rather than spewing crap onto the internet.
If you ask someone to stop such a pattern of behavior and they don't, that's harassment regardless of your personal history.
Reread the suit. She claims he harassed her "over a period of years". But during that period, she slept with him consensually! If you don't see how that detonates Ellen Pao's claim that his advances were unreciprocated (i.e. that they were "harassment"), not sure what to say.
Is "harassment" just "I felt mad at him years later" or is there any precise definition you're working from? Because if you define harassment as "unwanted advances", they objectively weren't unwanted back in 2006.
I'm really sorry I have to explain this, but the fact she slept with him a couple of times doesn't mean his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for that matter, those times they were successful).
To really dumb this down, this isn't like a child asking parents for a toy repeatedly and once the toy is given everyone involved is fine and has moved on. This is like an annoying salesperson calling you repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved in and bought something from them.
his advances weren't unwanted before or after (or, for
that matter, those times they were successful).
The successful advances were unwanted? Are you kidding? This is a reductio ad absurdum of feminism and may well be the most ludicrous thing ever posted on this site. Now no means no...and yes means no too! Now it's harassment even when she says yes. Retroactively, even if it wasn't at the time.
You sure you want to take that position?
Let's take it a little further. Suppose, as seems highly plausible, Nazre has steamy emails, texts, or pictures sent by Pao during that period.
Does that obviate the charge of harassment? Because I'd bet that will come out in discovery. I suppose the argument at that point will be that she was harassed into sending the pics.
This is like an annoying salesperson calling you
repeatedly and justifying it with the one time you caved
in and bought something from them.
Utterly wrong analogy. Falls down on every level. You don't sue Staples after you buy something from them. Staples didn't steal the money from you (rape), you gave it consensually. Buying something isn't sleeping with someone. Sleeping with someone "two or three" times isn't slipping up once. Suing them six years after isn't suing when the event happened.
Read the complaint. Ellen Pao, an extremely wealthy woman, has issues with virtually every partner at KPCB, one of whom she sleeps with and subsequently charges with sexual harassment years later. By her own admission, over a period of six years she continually complains about other partners and her compensation, title, and responsibilities. On the one hand she demands a transfer; yet on the other hand she wants the "harassers" to include her in meetings and emails and spends a full paragraph on the outrage of not being invited to a dinner party and another on ostensibly being excluded from a get together with junior associates.
She marries a man who made millions off of discrimination lawsuits. To top it off, she then launches her own discrimination lawsuit after seven years at the firm which made her so much money.
If anyone believes these charges at face value they are simply credulous. She is looking for "monetary restitution", a multimillion dollar payday comparable to what her husband has squeezed out of others in his multiple discrimination lawsuits.
> The successful advances were unwanted? Are you kidding?
No.
I see you have difficulty distinguishing between harassment and advances, unwanted or otherwise. You do, however, appear to know or are ready to presume a lot about this case, including things that are on a man's phone, so there is nothing more I wish to add to our discussion. Thanks for engaging me!
Just want you to know that there will be people who utterly reject your worldview (in a phrase, "yes means no") and all it entails. In your mind consent can be retroactively revoked years after the fact (to wit: "the successful advances were unwanted"). This is Kafkaesque and a frontal assault on the rule of law.
Fortunately, in a digital age, the past is not something Ellen Pao can rewrite at will. Future rule of thumb for anyone so unfortunate as to be caught up in an office romance: get her to put it in electronic form. Just one photographic expression of affection is enough to demonstrate to all and sundry that yeah, at the time, yes did mean yes. Since even admissions of consent no longer seem to preclude bogus charges, it's the only way to avoid being railroaded in a spurious lawsuit with people like you cheering on the travesty of justice.
I'm not saying wantedness can be rewritten. All along I've been saying that wantedness cannot be measured by success of the advances. If I ask you 100 times for a $20, and on the 101st time you give up and give me $20, my requests have been ultimately successful but I doubt at any point they would have been wanted. This lawsuit isn't about the $20, it's about the requests.
> No physical force is alleged, no police report was filed, no kidnapping occurred. This is something she only felt bad about after things ended.
This lawsuit isn't against the guy. This lawsuit is against the firm about their claimed lack of suitable response for her reports of harassment and a request for transfer. (And then there's the parts about systemic discrimination.)
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.
> 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.
Also irrelevant to whether this case has merit or not. Not saying you're implying it does, but I see a lot of commenters on Techcrunch and other places making that jump.
Wait, her husband was "married" to a guy for 10 years before they got married? How often does that happen?
"Before his marriage to Ms. Pao, Mr. Fletcher lived in the Dakota with Hobart V. Folkes Jr., his partner of more than 10 years, according to a New York Times article in 2004 on Mr. Fletcher’s philanthropy."
Edit: (Comment below). Where I said "have an absolute right to reject anyone" I meant as long as it doesn't violate a law. This is similar to how a company can refuse to hire anyone for any reason as long as they don't state a reason which is prohibited by law and as long as no evidence to that surfaces.
they stopped him from buying his fourth apartment, because a financial background check worked out that the guy couldn't afford it - despite being listed in Forbes magazine as being worth $150M
the article and others then go on to question how his investment funds have been making double-digit returns for the past two decades (sound familiar?)
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.
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.
<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>
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.
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.
Maybe. But I upvoted it instead because it reminds us that this happens to people. More precisely: it happens to people who are rich, and people who are poor. It happens to big people as well as small people.
Being harassed, and giving in briefly to the harassment in the hope that it will stop, does not necessarily make you weak, and does not stop you from seeking justice afterwards.
I don't presume to say whether it's true, just that the story has resonance for those reasons. I hope it reminds someone else in a bad situation to, y'know, break out, blow the whistle. I hope it reminds men who see it happening and who hear these complaints to act on them, to try to speak up against people making openly sexist comments.
Those were the main reasons I submitted it, with the other being about risks. Office romances have serious risks. No matter who was right or wrong, the initial coverage is going to be painful. The narrative is cookie cutter at this point, and let's face it, with just a filing and the need to push a story out, you really cannot expect anything else. If your business name generates page views then expect a couple of updates as journalists actually read the the full filing.
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.
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.
You're jumping to conclusions that she is doing what is right, and isn't either trying to get a pay out, or views her companies actions through a lens of default sexism.
Yeah, I'm with you. I don't know anything about this lawsuit but I have the strong feeling that many of her accusations are true.
Also when I read things like "[...] Christina Lee, a Kleiner Perkins spokesperson, stated the Firm regrets that the situation is being litigated publicly and had hoped the two parties could have reached resolution [...]" I feel a bit bad. What is she implying? Paying her a big sum to keep her mouth shut? ...
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.
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.
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.
It's strange -- people don't seem to harass up the chain of command. I wonder why that is?
People who engage in sexual harassment may not understand office norms, but like everyone else, they have an instinctive understanding of power relationships.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.