Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck The Courts

Ellen Pao Drops Appeal of Gender Discrimination Suit 234

Posted by timothy from the this-chapter-at-least dept.
McGruber writes: Jeff Bezo's newspaper is reporting that Ellen Pao is dropping her appeal of the gender discrimination suit she lost against her former employer, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Pao sued KPCB in 2012, claiming that women were not given fair consideration in the male-dominated workplace. She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it. She was fired soon after filing her suit. After a bruising month-long trial in which her personal character and work performance were repeatedly brought into question, a jury of six men and six woman ruled that there was no evidence of gender discrimination.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ellen Pao Drops Appeal of Gender Discrimination Suit More

Ellen Pao Drops Appeal of Gender Discrimination Suit

Comments Filter:

  • At least I won't have to read about it in Wired (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NotDrWho ( 3543773 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @09:01AM (#50501865)

    I would say expect another 2-week long series from Wired on what a grave injustice this is and how incredibly brave and heroic Ellen Pao is, but she resigned from their sister company.

    • Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @10:36AM (#50502417)

      Not to worry, other people are suing tech groups for discrimination quite successfully [slashdot.org]. Maybe they can write about that instead.

      • Re:At least I won't have to read about it in Wired (Score:4)

        by Znork ( 31774 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @12:26PM (#50503529)

        Well, sounds like he's actually got a case as the businesses he's suing actually seem to discriminate on sex. Pao, on the other hand, seems like she got treated badly because she was behaving like a flaming SJW and made people want to leave when she was involved, which the later stint at reddit seemed to confirm fairly well.

        • It's a shame that you used the term SJW to describe her. People who are Social Justice Warriors have done important things to help establish rights for people who have been otherwise unfairly marginalized in our society. Unfortunately the term seem to have been usurped by MRAs who use it to describe anyone who disagrees with their (very often bigoted) worldview.

          She's NOT a SJW. She's just a self-entitled little bitch throwing a temper tantrum cause not enough people patted her on the head and told her wh

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Unfortunately the term seem to have been usurped by MRAs who use it to describe anyone who disagrees with their (very often bigoted) worldview.

            You mean average people are seeing what many of them are, whiny people who have first world problems, crying about stuff in the first world and not giving a shit about actual problems. Recent examples would include "is air conditioning sexist" and "white men are the cause of all ills in society."

  • as in Germany (Score:5, Interesting)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @09:14AM (#50501917) Journal

    Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.

    • Loser pays??? That's un-'merican!!!

    • The article does say '"I am now moving on, paying Kleiner Perkins’ legal costs and dropping my appeal," Pao wrote. "My experience shows how difficult it is to address discrimination through the court system."'

      Now, it is possible that she is paying the legal costs out of the goodness of her heart, but given the second statement indicating that she doesn't believe the decision to be just, I doubt it.

    • If I'm not mistaken, this may be part of why she's dropping it. I recall reading somewhere that Kleiner Perkins offered to not demand that she pay their attorney fees if she dropped the appeal.

      • If I'm not mistaken, this may be part of why she's dropping it. I recall reading somewhere that Kleiner Perkins offered to not demand that she pay their attorney fees if she dropped the appeal.

        She did offer to drop and they still made her pay anyway..... From New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09... [nytimes.com]

        The court determined that Ms. Pao owed Kleiner $276,000 in court fees, and the firm offered to waive those if she did not appeal. But in her statement on Wednesday, Ms. Pao said that she was still ordered to pay those to resolve the lawsuit.

        Couldn't read the Washington Post article due to them hating my ad blocker and prompting me to subscribe.....screw 'em...

        • Or shes a liar! (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          "But in her statement on Wednesday, Ms. Pao said that she was still ordered to pay those to resolve the lawsuit."

          She's playing the "I am a victim" card, to play that card she needs to portray herself as a victim. Most likely she is just lying here, like she did in the lawsuit itself.
          She's not a victim, she's an aggressive attacker, attacking her employer for a failed affair with a co-worker. I have zero pity for her.

    • Pao is already on the hook for a Judge-determined amount of legal costs after the case was decided in KP's favour - the Judge did reduce the amount of costs awarded however, for various reasons. The amount awarded was about $276,000.

      KP then offered to forgo recovering the costs if Pao didn't appeal. She made a counter offer of KP paying her $2.7Million to go away. KP rejected that offer, Pao appealed the case, then appealed against the costs, saying she shouldn't have to pay as it "sent a bad message".

      No

    • Now, she should be liable for the costs of the suit.

      Not really. This is a social policy decision, but especially in discrimination cases there are very good reasons for *not* making an unsuccessful plaintiff pay for the costs of the suit.

      First, it gives the defendant an incentive to hire a more expensive legal team to encourage settlement.

      Second, while *most* discrimination claims brought to court are bullshit, a lot of legit discrimination claims are never brought to court. We allow the *most* bullshit claims because we think it's *important* to allow the

      • However, if the case turns out to be frivolous (as opposed to having insufficient evidence), it's reasonable to ask the plaintiff to pay legal fees. If there's some evidence, but not enough to convince, I agree with you.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        I agree with loser pays, but I also think it ought to be capped, like the cost of ONE lawyer and ONE legal assistant at an industry average cost per hour, plus maybe some reasonable miscellaneous expenses. I do think that, otherwise, large corporations (or the wealthy) would just hire 100 lawyers at top rates to scare away potential lawsuits.

  • Good (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This is a win for common sense everywhere.

  • Grumpycat: GOOD (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    People like that with such flawed manipulative characters deserved to be tossed out on their rears for wasting everyone's time. She wasn't even a good worker to boot.

    • She's a botched human who has a warped view of reality.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      People like that with such flawed manipulative characters deserved to be tossed out on their rears for wasting everyone's time. She wasn't even a good worker to boot.

      Well, you have to consider the position she had, which IIRC was CEO. You can't exactly hold manipulativeness and an inability to demonstrate real long-term value to the company against her.

  • Ellen Pao is trash (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Looking at what happened to reddit, I wish Ellen Pao would fuck off already. The whole site is now a shithole.

    • Re:Ellen Pao is trash (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 11, 2015 @09:36AM (#50502053)

      I'm not convinced it was all her fault.

      It may have been that she was an easy fall guy, and now that Reddit's expended its energy trying to expunge itself of Pao, it forgot that she couldn't have acted alone. It's not like she was running the site all by her lonesome.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Correction.

      That whole site has always been a shithole.

  • Can't even mention Washington Post? Grow Up. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigdady92 ( 635263 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @09:27AM (#50501989) Homepage
    The snarky "Jeff Bezo's newspaper" is a crappy lil passive aggressive dig at the paper's owner. Grow a pair submitard.
    • I take that as a dig at all those who were outraged yesterday when National Geographic announced it was selling its media outlets to Murdoch. Pot, meet kettle.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Himmy32 ( 650060 )
        The difference there was the large change in a nonprofit being bought out by a for profit conglomerate with largely different goals. I am sure if it was bought out by a conglomerate Bezo or anyone else owned there would still be negative reactions. Being the scandal ridden Murdoch - News Corp, was just an added target for people to be upset at.
    • The submitter is a long-time (20-year) reader of the Washington Post, who has watched it turn to shit.

  • Why management is hard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @09:34AM (#50502035) Journal

    She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.

    These sorts of petty fights aren't uncommon these days. Most project management books and classes talk about things like allocating resources, "managing up," agile vs waterfall, etc, but managers spend a surprising amount of time dealing with bizarre interpersonal issues and personal issues that don't really show up in the books. If I were teaching a management class, the first chapter would be "how to get your underlings to overcome weird personal issues."

    The fight about the radio in Office Space feels sadly real.

  • Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @10:23AM (#50502327)
    Some years ago we had a post from a lawyer who had experience with employment related law suits. He told us that his advice to clients was to give up and not file a lawsuit. He said that the reality was that the deck was stacked in favor of the employer and he estimated that maybe 10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee. I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way. All I can tell you is that while that may be true, we can't make that assumption. Juries are staffed with stupid people a lot of times who aren't fit to be judges on anything. I know because unlike many of you, I've actually served on juries twice. I hope I never get picked again because the whole process has made me permanently cynical about the law and so-called justice in the USA. My brother got fired more than 20 years ago from a low paying job and his employer lied about the reason he was fired in a hearing about whether my brother should get paid unemployment money or not. Whoever heard the case ruled against my brother because it was just his word against theirs and neither could prove their side. Ellen was facing long odds and I wasn't there to hear testimony so I can't judge the merits of her case, but it's idiotic to just assume the jury got it right. If you actually believe that juries almost always get it right you better pray you don't ever have to go to court and have your important case decided by 12 idiots. The last jury I served on had 3 guys in the jury room prior to the day's testimony trying to out argue the other 2 that they were stupider with technology than the other 2 were. These are the kinds of people who decide cases - morons who try to argue that they're the stupidest person in the room and take pride in winning that argument.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way

      No, I think that most people assume her case was groundless because she has a long history of being an infamously shitty manager who gets fired from every company she works for, because she makes stupid fucking decisions like having affairs with married men at work, and because she's married to a skeevy guy [wikipedia.org] with his own history of business failures and discrimination lawsuits.

    • Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win (Score:4, Insightful)

      by NostalgiaForInfinity ( 4001831 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @10:48AM (#50502559)

      He said that the reality was that the deck was stacked in favor of the employer and he estimated that maybe 10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee.

      That doesn't mean that the "deck is stacked against the employee", it means that a lot of lawsuits are groundless. It means that we should reconsider the entire idea of "sex discrimination lawsuits" since they are obviously being massively abused.

      I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way.

      Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits (the same is, of course, true for men).

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The lawyer is saying that the deck is stacked, hence the low success rate. You can't turn that around based on just reversing his professional opinion, you have to provide something to support your argument. Are you a lawyer that deals with employment issues? Do you have any data?

        By the way, having a consensual relationship with someone is the opposite to sexual harassment and discrimination. You can have one and still be the victim of the other. Duh.

        • Are you a lawyer that deals with employment issues? Do you have any data?

          Yes I do have data. The data is that 90% of courts of law and juries determine that, after lawyers have made their case, they couldn't find sufficient evidence to convict.

          See, what matter isn't what some poster on Slashdot has heard one lawyer say some time, what matters is actually what courts determine.

          By the way, having a consensual relationship with someone is the opposite to sexual harassment and discrimination. You can have one a

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Really, having a relationship with someone at work is grounds for termination? That's fucked up. I know lots of couples who work together, some of them even married. I doubt termination due to a consensual relationship would stand up in court in any jurisdiction with reasonable employment laws.

      • Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits

        Why? Those are two completely orthogonal issues and are essentially unrelated.

        • Re:Lawsuits like hers are very difficult to win (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @05:03PM (#50505795)

          Actually, I think, once she had an consensual affair with someone at work, she lost any credibility filing a sex discrimination lawsuits

          Why? Those are two completely orthogonal issues and are essentially unrelated.

          No, they are not unrelated. This is not some criminal trial, where evidence can be suppressed and become irrelevant.

          The jury in the case had a lot of questions about Pao's affair

          To most people, they want a victim to be a victim, not to use their sex as a way to possibly get ahead, which is sure as hell what it looked like.

          After reading a lot of the testimony, I came to the conclusion that is exactly what she was doing. Her account of the "pressure" was unconvincing, and her account that the guy sexually assaulted her in 2006 after she was hit by a taxi ( she claimed she was unable to move in a daze, while he was innapropriately touching her) Something a little odd about that whole story, unless you buy into her having Stockholm syndrome. I mean innapropriate touching is sexuall assault, so why didn't she make criminal charges against the guy then?

          She had vivid memories, except when she didn't. And her memories seemed to falter on matters that might not have made her look so good.

          Serious credibility problem here.

          Finally, after all these apparent insults, she offered for KP to pay her 10 million in exit money. They didn't, and she filed the suit.

          You can believe whatever you want. I'll come to the conclusion that she rather liked her money, and was having a rather good time until things went south.

        • Because having a consensual affair with a coworker ought to be, by itself, sufficient justification for firing someone.

          In addition, it shows bad judgment and a propensity for mixing sex with work on her part.

    • "10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee"

      As one of the AC's replied, this could very well be because 90% of those cases are completely frivolous. Also, does that 10% include cases that were settled? The EEOC reported that 9% were settled in 2012. That would leave just 1% that were won in favor of the plantiff:
      http://smallbusiness.chron.com... [chron.com]

      "These are the kinds of people who decide cases - morons"

      I've been on quite a few juries. My anecdotal experience has been the complete opposite.

      "

      • It's also idiotic to assume that the jury consisted of idiots.

        Aardvark's Law: In any group of people, the majority are idiots.

    • Most employees don't have her level of resources to bring such a case. Although what you say is probably true (I certainly have no evidence to refute it), this isn't a typical case. She has an obscene amount of resources to bring to the table on this and still couldn't convince a jury. One thing that certain is true is that she isn't a very sympathetic litigant. I've seen real cases of gender discrimination throughout my career. I've seen more cases of incompetent people taking advantage of being in pr

    • You must not be in California, where the labor laws are so stacked in favor of employees it is absurd. For example, if there is a wage and hour dispute, and employee can file a complaint with the DLSE. The first meeting is a settlement hearing, not one in which the facts are presented and discussed. IOW, the employer is guilty by default. If no settlement is reached, the employee can decide whether to go to a judgement hearing, or just sue. If the employee doesn't have a case, he or she will sue, paying the

    • Some years ago we had a post from a lawyer who had experience with employment related law suits. He told us that his advice to clients was to give up and not file a lawsuit. He said that the reality was that the deck was stacked in favor of the employer and he estimated that maybe 10% of lawsuits against employers were won by the employee. I know that it's the Slashdot way to just assume her case was groundless simply because a jury ruled that way.

      Actually, I personally decided that the case was groundless because of one thing. She was having an affair someone above her on the food chain. If she had any kind of proof that she was forced to have an affair with the guy, I'd say she was due every cent plus punitive damages. And if she was being forced to, it seems like a good time to start recording evidence.

      But even in her court testimony, her reason for carrying on with the guy was because she heard he had left his wife.

      The woman simply had zero

  • don't shit where you eat (Score:3)

    by NostalgiaForInfinity ( 4001831 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @10:43AM (#50502479)

    She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.

    If you're having an affair at work, don't complain when people eventually kick one of the two participants out; having squabbling ex lovers around is disruptive. That's why people don't shit where they eat.

  • Workplace affairs (Score:3)

    by jdavidb ( 449077 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @11:15AM (#50502851) Homepage Journal

    She also said that a male colleague with whom she had an affair unfairly cut her out of e-mail correspondence and upper management did nothing about it.

    What the hell? People who have workplace affairs should be fired - not have management support them by forcing the affair to continue.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jdavidb ( 449077 )

      Having a workplace affair does not make you a champion of women's rights.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jdavidb ( 449077 )

      Okay, hmm, having read some more, the affair was with a junior partner, so I'm assuming this person was her senior. In that case he should bear more of the liability for the affair and it is likely that in many states she'd be able to sue him and the company for it. Still not a women's rights issue. Maybe the women's rights issue is that he didn't get terminated or disciplined for seducing someone below him in the hierarchy?

    • What the hell? People who have workplace affairs should be fired - not have management support them by forcing the affair to continue.

      Screw you. My best friend got married as the result of a workplace romance.

  • Pao: "Trolls are winning battle for the Internet" (Score:3)

    by McGruber ( 1417641 ) on Friday September 11, 2015 @11:15AM (#50502855)
    When I submitted, I forgot to mention that Bezo's newspaper published a July 6 opinion piece written by Ellen Pao: Former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao: The trolls are winning the battle for the Internet [washingtonpost.com]

    Pao's essay is bizzare -- she complained about "trolls" while she herself used the troll tactic of claiming to be swamped with private messages of support:

    As the trolls on Reddit grew louder and more harassing in recent weeks, another group of users became more vocal. First a few sent positive messages. Then a few more. Soon, I was receiving hundreds of messages a day, and at one point thousands. These messages were thoughtful, well-written and heartfelt, in stark contrast to the trolling messages, which were usually made up of little more than four-letter words. Many shared their own stories of harassment and thanked us for our stance.

    The writers of these messages often said they could not imagine the hate I was experiencing. Most apologized for the trolls’ behavior. And some apologized for standing on the sidelines. “I didn’t do anything, and that is why I am sorry,” one user wrote. “I stayed indifferent. I didn’t attack nor defend. I am sorry for my inaction. You are a human. And no one needs to be treated like you were.” Some apologized for their own trollish behavior and promised they had reformed.

    As the threats became really violent, people ended their messages with “stay safe.” Eventually, users started responding on Reddit itself, using accurate information and supportive messages to fight back against the trolls.

    If Pao had really received "hundreds of messages a day" from supporters, then she should have been easily able to use crowfunding to pay her legal bills.... IMHO.

    • Trolls?


      Fuck that worthless cunt!

    • “I stayed indifferent. I didn’t attack nor defend. I am sorry for my inaction. You are a human. And no one needs to be treated like you were.”

      I don't suppose the sociopath who made up the above (*cough Ellen *cough*) had the foggiest idea of how transparent it actually sounds...

  • If there is real discrimination then I'm open to hearing about it. But if its just toxic sociopaths spinning tales to intimidate and extort then they can go fuck themselves with a rake.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Close