Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
The Courts Businesses The Almighty Buck

Ellen Pao Loses Silicon Valley Gender Bias Case Against Kleiner Perkins 365

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ellen Pao Loses Silicon Valley Gender Bias Case Against Kleiner Perkins

Comments Filter:
  • by Chris Katko ( 2923353 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @07:38PM (#49358487)
    "Ellen Pao gender-bias lawsuit is a setback for women"
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025377... [cnbc.com]

    Written by a female ex-CEO.

    In a nutshell, the case is obviously frivolous, and if it had succeeded it would have been another barrier for women in the industry because companies would see a female applicant and go, "Is she worth the risk?"
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by farble1670 ( 803356 )

      yeah, i read that article. it's kind of baseless. she uses the term "frivolous" over and over, but that would imply she knew that facts and evaluated the situation. there's no facts in the article all. she's calling it frivolous because,

      "A job is an exchange of services on one side for compensation on the other. If that exchange is not working for either side, then move on. If you don't like how you are being treated, what you are getting paid, your opportunities, your co-workers or any other aspect of wher

      • You claim to dislike the article because it provides no facts, and follow that up with two of your own assertions which appear to be nothing more than slander. I am assuming you have facts which back these two statements.

        basically, she an extreme capitalist that doesn't believe in "workers' rights" at all.
        she's saying "hey, being discriminating on? just leave and work somewhere else. it's a free country."

        I make no claim that you have to agree with her opinion, but I do claim that poisoning the well with slander is a pathetic way of garnering agreements with your own opinion. Placing the proverbial icing on the cake, your last statement is completely irrational.

        "leave and get a new job or start your own business."
        that's just a little elitist. assuming everyone has the capital to start their own business.

        Notice that your short rant

      • by swb ( 14022 )

        The irony is that the same logic applied to the job by the worker basically means -- I'm free to do whatever I want at this job, and if it doesn't work out of them they can fire me.

        For the company, the logic means they can be abusive, discriminatory, dishonest and exploitive.

        So for the worker then, I guess they can be lazy, dishonest, unproductive, etc. It's the worker's role to exploit the company for the maximum gain they can get. Maximum shirk, minimum work.

        What's funny is, I would bet that author if

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27, 2015 @07:44PM (#49358521)

    Man has an affair on the job, expects to get fired, woman has an affair on the job, expects $16M. Nothing coming out of this case makes it look like she had even the tiniest shred of evidence she didn't deserve what she got besides her gender.

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @07:50PM (#49358555)

    I don't mean the article but this gender bias issue which is almost entirely factious and where not factious almost always radical hyperbole.

    The gender wage game since the 1970s has been less then TWO percent not 30 percent WHEN you factor in years on the job. Nearly every comparison between men and women that cite a large gender pay game ignores that the women often take as many as ten years off while they raise children. To compare that person's value to the company against someone that didn't take those ten years off is either gross incompetence or calculated deceit. And that was in the 1970s and that is only when factoring for a SINGLE additional variable.

    There are other variables that can easily account for the remaining 2 percent and then some.

    Subject this garbage to the cold light of reality and it evaporates into nothing.

    By all means, contradict me... but if you do, provide some logic and if you cite evidence, expect it to be audited.

    I will accept nothing from anyone that isn't open to examination.

  • But instead she just got owned by the room.
  • by Sara Chan ( 138144 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @08:03PM (#49358639)
    For some great background on how corrupt Pao and her husband are, see "Some Thoughts on Ellen Pao’s Marriage [richardbradley.net]", by Richard Bradley. Basically, Pao's husband has a history of dubious lawsuits, and Pao seems to have gone along in his family suing business.
  • She just has to claim she got because of this law suit rape and death threads and had to leave her house. In no time she is a twitter star and.....?????? ..... Profit.

  • Is this suprising? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @09:58PM (#49359063)

    ...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.

    Why would someone expect their employer to keep them around after they file a lawsuit against them?

    • Why would someone expect their employer to keep them around after they file a lawsuit against them?

      Well, actually, I would expect that to happen if the lawsuit was justified. Let's say there is building work at my company and my car gets damaged, and I think it's the fault of my company. Sorting that out should have no effect on my career. It's different if you file a lawsuit and it turns out it is all based on lies.

      • by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        Well, actually, I would expect that to happen if the lawsuit was justified. Let's say there is building work at my company and my car gets damaged, and I think it's the fault of my company. Sorting that out should have no effect on my career.

        She's costing her employer time in a legal defense either way. What company wouldn't get rid of a troblemaker like that?

        Also, I would think filing a lawsuit for poor treatment by an employer while continuing to work there would only hurt her case, unless she's going to claim she has some form of Stockholm Syndrome with them.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) *

        When did she lie? It seems like she just interpreted what happened differently. The facts don't seem to beer disputed, only the interpretation of them.

System going down at 5 this afternoon to install scheduler bug.

Working...