9 ms·

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 com

by staunch 14y ago

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.

oh_sigh 14y ago
How you can determine this based entirely on the complaint? The firm has not had a chance to defend themselves. How do you know they favor men? Maybe there is a bigger pool of talented men than women in this field?
temphn 14y ago
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY
- brown9-2 14y ago
  You seem to have missed this part of the article: 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.
  - badclient 14y ago
    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. Alas, don't shit where you eat.
    - aplusbi 14y ago
      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.
      - badclient 14y ago
        I am curious if she pursued this criminally. And if she did, I think it is important to take into account the view of the DA/cops. If she is not bringing up the criminal angle, chances are she never pursued it or the DA passed on the case. That is not great news for her case. Typically you do the civil case after the conclusion of the criminal one, especially if you are confident he will be found guilty.
        NoPiece 14y ago
        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.
        starwed 14y ago
        To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about here.
    - 14y ago
- Steko 14y ago
  "Wait, so then it wasn't harassment?" 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.
- throwawaytemp 14y ago
  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.
  - badclient 14y ago
    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.
    - sp332 14y ago
- mavelikara 14y ago
  "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."
  - afarrell 14y ago
    That doesn't sound like a relationships so much as intimidating someone into having sex...
  - temphn 14y ago
    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.
    - diyang 14y ago
      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.
      - temphn 14y ago
        I'm not implying promiscuity. I'm implying that it can't actually be "harassment" if she lost track of how many times they had consensual sex. Doesn't "yes" mean "yes", not "yes but I might sue you later"?

by staunch 14y ago

oh_sigh 14y ago

How you can determine this based entirely on the complaint? The firm has not had a chance to defend themselves. How do you know they favor men? Maybe there is a bigger pool of talented men than women in this field?

temphn 14y ago

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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY

brown9-2 14y ago
You seem to have missed this part of the article: 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.
- badclient 14y ago
  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. Alas, don't shit where you eat.
  - aplusbi 14y ago
    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.
    - badclient 14y ago
      I am curious if she pursued this criminally. And if she did, I think it is important to take into account the view of the DA/cops. If she is not bringing up the criminal angle, chances are she never pursued it or the DA passed on the case. That is not great news for her case. Typically you do the civil case after the conclusion of the criminal one, especially if you are confident he will be found guilty.
      - NoPiece 14y ago
        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.
      - starwed 14y ago
        To be blunt, you have no idea what you're talking about here.
  - 14y ago
Steko 14y ago
"Wait, so then it wasn't harassment?" 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.
throwawaytemp 14y ago
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.
- badclient 14y ago
  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.
  - sp332 14y ago
mavelikara 14y ago
"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."
- afarrell 14y ago
  That doesn't sound like a relationships so much as intimidating someone into having sex...
- temphn 14y ago
  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.
  - diyang 14y ago
    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.
    - temphn 14y ago
      I'm not implying promiscuity. I'm implying that it can't actually be "harassment" if she lost track of how many times they had consensual sex. Doesn't "yes" mean "yes", not "yes but I might sue you later"?