6 ms·

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 busine

by 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.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" Was thinking the same thing. Also a psychological component, intermittent reinforcement. She had rebuffed him and then agreed to have sex 2 or 3 times. Who knows over what period that happened and whether there was any rebuff in between the sexual events. After all, he persisted and to away with it at least one time after being rejected. (Not agreeing his behavior was proper obviously just pointing this out.)
  - brudgers 14y ago
    "Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" No. Which means, no.
    - _debug_ 14y ago
      Except it meant yes, for a while. When she first said no, and he persisted, and then she acceded, she trained him into believing that persistence pays off. So when she says no again, it seems to me that it is almost mathematically predictable that he will re-double his persistent efforts to win her back. 'no means no' does not apply when it sometimes means yes. With added flakiness, 'no means no' means : 'no means yes once in a while, and no means no when I feel like it, and you're a rapist and I'm still an angel if you cannot figure it out'.
- kevinpet 14y ago
  It does not excuse the behavior, but it may very well be that coworkers who broke off a relationship are more likely to falsely accuse each other of harassment and/or overreact to innocent or trivial incidents. It may not be true in this case, but if it's true in general, it is a reasonable factor in evaluating how they reacted to her complaints.
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    You mean she was asking for it? Where did you pull the false accusation / innocent or trivial incidents from? And if may not be true in this case why bring it up? She asked to be transferred away from him because of this and they ignored her, how much more insensitive could it get. Even when you're in a relationship 'no' still means 'no' and 'leave me alone' still means just that.
    - kevinpet 14y ago
      Yes, because I can recognize factors that may reasonably influence whether you should take someone's complaints of harassment at face value, I am clearly advocating rape.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        I'm not asking you to take them at face value, I'm asking you simply to consider them at all without immediately jumping to possible alternative explanations of the same set of facts that are a lot more complicated than the original one, that she claims that she was harassed and then ignored and that was the end of it. Occam's razor and all that. Harassment does happen, and in cases like this the person that steps up has enough problems on their hand without being dealt more crap. The prior situation has no bearing on what she claims happened, it either did or it did not, and even if it did not the complaint should have been taken serious. So we're not even getting to 'taking the complaints at face value', we're simply establishing that she claims that her complaints were ignored. That's a pretty low bar to have to jump over, if someone claims sexual harassment and you ignore them then you're simply wrong, regardless of whether or not the complaint is true.
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 temphn 14y ago

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.
- larrys 14y ago
  "Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" Was thinking the same thing. Also a psychological component, intermittent reinforcement. She had rebuffed him and then agreed to have sex 2 or 3 times. Who knows over what period that happened and whether there was any rebuff in between the sexual events. After all, he persisted and to away with it at least one time after being rejected. (Not agreeing his behavior was proper obviously just pointing this out.)
- brudgers 14y ago
  "Certainly it introduces a new complexity to the case, no?" No. Which means, no.
  - _debug_ 14y ago
    Except it meant yes, for a while. When she first said no, and he persisted, and then she acceded, she trained him into believing that persistence pays off. So when she says no again, it seems to me that it is almost mathematically predictable that he will re-double his persistent efforts to win her back. 'no means no' does not apply when it sometimes means yes. With added flakiness, 'no means no' means : 'no means yes once in a while, and no means no when I feel like it, and you're a rapist and I'm still an angel if you cannot figure it out'.
kevinpet 14y ago
It does not excuse the behavior, but it may very well be that coworkers who broke off a relationship are more likely to falsely accuse each other of harassment and/or overreact to innocent or trivial incidents. It may not be true in this case, but if it's true in general, it is a reasonable factor in evaluating how they reacted to her complaints.
- jacquesm 14y ago
  You mean she was asking for it? Where did you pull the false accusation / innocent or trivial incidents from? And if may not be true in this case why bring it up? She asked to be transferred away from him because of this and they ignored her, how much more insensitive could it get. Even when you're in a relationship 'no' still means 'no' and 'leave me alone' still means just that.
  - kevinpet 14y ago
    Yes, because I can recognize factors that may reasonably influence whether you should take someone's complaints of harassment at face value, I am clearly advocating rape.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      I'm not asking you to take them at face value, I'm asking you simply to consider them at all without immediately jumping to possible alternative explanations of the same set of facts that are a lot more complicated than the original one, that she claims that she was harassed and then ignored and that was the end of it. Occam's razor and all that. Harassment does happen, and in cases like this the person that steps up has enough problems on their hand without being dealt more crap. The prior situation has no bearing on what she claims happened, it either did or it did not, and even if it did not the complaint should have been taken serious. So we're not even getting to 'taking the complaints at face value', we're simply establishing that she claims that her complaints were ignored. That's a pretty low bar to have to jump over, if someone claims sexual harassment and you ignore them then you're simply wrong, regardless of whether or not the complaint is true.

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"?