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.
Here's the actual text of the lawsuit;
This suit will make a lot of people uncomfortable and that's a good thing.