Slashdot Mirror
Ellen Pao Loses Silicon Valley Gender Bias Case Against Kleiner Perkins
vivaoporto writes As reported by the New York Times, USA Today and other publications, a jury of six men and six women rejected current Reddit Inc CEO Ellen Pao's claims against her former employer, the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Ms. Pao's suit, that alleged employment discrimination based on gender, workplace retaliation and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination, asked $16 million in compensatory damages plus punitive damages. The jury decided, after more than two days of deliberation and more than four weeks of testimony, that her formed employer neither discriminated against the former junior partner for her gender, nor fired the complainant because of a high-profile gender discrimination lawsuit against the firm in 2012. She alleged that Kleiner Perkins had promoted male partners over equally qualified women at the firm, including herself, and then retaliated against her for raising concerns about the firm's gender dynamics by failing to promote her and finally firing her after seven years at the firm after she filed her 2012 lawsuit.
That seems correct. A lot of companies will think: "Don't hire women. They may accuse someone of "gender bias" or "sexual harassment". In the U.S. at present, that is an easy way to get money without earning it.
A long time ago, I was dating an attractive woman who had 2 jobs in traditionally male areas. I said to her, "Women often say they have trouble with unacceptable male attention." She told me, "They ask for it!" (Exact quote) I questioned her and learned that opinion of hers was very strong and rooted in considerable experience.
She always dressed in a way that made people respect her.
SJW is only used by a smallish group, so it makes sense that the group that sticks together and acts as if there's a big conspiracy against them come to the same definition. These people sit around waiting for some slashdot story to roll about social issue just so that they can jump out and shout SJW! at someone. It's kind of pathetic.
I like SWT myself for the anti-SJW derps - Single White Troll.
But that's been the standard MO with feminist for a while now-
Assist women: benevolent sexism.
Don't assist women: supporter of rape culture.
Cite lack of voting rights for women: proof of misogyny.
Point out universal suffrage for men is tied to conscription: patriarchy hurts men too.
Feminism has been a wonderful exercise in mental gymnastics to where everything can be spun as proof misogyny. And even when pointing out glaring hypocrisies: there are several branches of feminism, and the particular one you are debating does not support that particular contradiction.
But then again, a woman is always free to change her mind.
...how will this reflect on her husband's Ponzi scheme lawsuits.
Those $16 million would have probably come in handy.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I dislike the militant feminists as much as you do but my feeling is that verdict here was not right.
The proper verdict would have been to destroy both the KP partners and Pao as they all horrible human beings.
I won't state why Pao is a horrible person as I'm sure it's been stated before. However, let's not forget the things within KP that were, in my opinion, outrageous. These incidents were garbage regardless of whether Pao was a man or a woman.
1. The partner (?) who did not want to invite the women in the company to a getaway with Al Gore because it would "kill the buzz." The buzz would be killed because the excluded party were women, not because they were unpleasant people.
2. The board seat on one of the startups Pao challenged was given to a loser instead of Pao. The reason? The loser "needed a win." How would anyone feel if part of their bonus was taken away and given to a bozo because the bozo otherwise would get nothing and thus "needed a win?"
3. Dipping one's pen into the company inkwell. Pao was stupid to sleep with the Indian sleazebag and that probably gave her a reputation in the office. But let us assume she's an utter whore and slut. Do the married men in the company have absolutely no control over themselves? Here I'm talking about the married man who gave her a book of erotic poetry.
All I can say is, "Kill them with fire. All of them."
We already do for black females as they are more likely to cost us money bringing a claim against us for dismissing them. Either firing them or terminating their employment for various reasons.
As a small company we cannot afford to make a mistake with the whole weight of Federal and State laws for someone to crush us with so we have taken risk mitigation very seriously.
So you admit to the discrimination you are saying you don't want to be accused of? yeah, shocking that you might get sued...
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
What's 'controversial' about an ABC bitch who slept around the office to get favors, got shafted and got $40k a month compensation for the effort on termination? Every ABC bitch I know on boards of various companies slept their way into it, slept around to keep it, became a major nuisance and eventually got shafted one way or the other, but not without making many lives miserable. At least one used her office superpowers to have married men sleep with them, and yet somehow this isn't harassment, that Michael Douglas movie notwithstanding. All were feminazis like this bitch, which comes with the cunt and the ABC upbringing. Also, WTF have lawyers to do with tech? The field would have advanced much farther, and techies would be paid much better if all lawyers were drowned in the Pacific, rather than living on its coast.
Also, let's not forget the real reason why she's suing: hubby got caught stealing pension money from his lovely fund, and now she has to pay for the ejucation of her daughter and her grandchildren.
The only thing I don't understand about this case is why isn't she paying a female staffer to carry her mattress around Reddit.
Absolutely loving the reasoning here. There are two possible outcomes.
False dichotomy.
I am not much interested THAT Pao lost the suit. I am interested in WHY she lost the suit.
Until we know that, all other bets are off. You're guessing, and your guesses are probably not correct.
A study on anonymous hiring practices in France showed that anonymization resulted in fewer minority candidates getting hired. Their explanation is essentially that the companies who care enough about diversity to participate in this sort of study are already subtly biased in favor of minority candidates, and anonymization put a stop to it. Considering the amount of focus big tech companies are putting on diversity, there's a fair chance the same thing is happening here too.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.