7 ms·

How exactly are you reading this as "damning and credible"? Whether or not Lane was suggesting that she would be the one who would have to leave instead of Nazr

by zone411 12y ago

How exactly are you reading this as "damning and credible"? Whether or not Lane was suggesting that she would be the one who would have to leave instead of Nazre hinges on Pao's reading of the situation being correct: "Pao said this implied that Lane was suggesting that she would have to leave Kleiner, too." Apparently Lane did not think so: "Lane said in his testimony last week that he only relayed this story to show how he understood how complicated workplace relationships could be."

deveac 12y ago
By any interpretation, responding to a complaint that she was being retaliated against and a request for clearer HR policies regarding this with a suggestion that she and the man who was retaliating against her could have a good life though they probably wouldn't be able to work together...well that's damning enough. You don't need to suss out whether he was actually suggesting she or he quit for this to be the case.
- trose 12y ago
  EXACTLY. The _only_ appropriate response to an employee approaching you with a harassment complaint and asking for HR intervention would be to get a representative (sounds like they didnt have one) and a lawyer involved immediately. Followed by asking if she needs anything to continue working while feeling safe. What in the world was going through this guy's head?
  - zone411 12y ago
    But she did not complain about harassment at that time. Based on Techcrunch's article, she was complaining about Nazre making her work more difficult by cutting her out of key work discussions and taking her out of e-mail threads.
    - jellicle 12y ago
      And why was Nazre doing that?
      - zone411 12y ago
        How about you tell me if you have a point to make?
      - tomp 12y ago
        They were in love/dating/having sex, then they broke up. It's pretty easy to see why he was upset. According to the saying, "don't shit where you eat", both of them could have known better before starting their relationship.
    - kaitai 12y ago
      How is that not harassment?
    - deveac 12y ago
      You just detailed the harassment.
- zone411 12y ago
  You're basing your "damning enough" opinion on Pao's statements when questioned by her own attorney. But Lane's testimony was: "I thought that it should be investigated, I thought that it should be responded to, but that it was up to her," which while not great, seems quite less damning. The grandparent also called it "credible," however when Pao was cross-examined about whether she asked if Kleiner maintained a policy that prohibited discrimination or harassment, she said "yes" on the stand and "no" in deposition, making her seem less than credible regarding asking for clearer HR policies in this incident.
pmorici 12y ago
The damning part isn't so much what is there as what isn't. The only appropriate response from a manager after being told by an employee about possible sexual harassment is to look into the facts and take action to correct the situation or fire the offender as the facts warrant.
- zone411 12y ago
  At that time she was complaining about a coworker making her work "more difficult" after their relationship ended. Do you believe this falls under sexual harassment?
  - pmorici 12y ago
    Yes, that is pretty much a textbook legal definition of sexual harassment. A relationship was no longer welcome and as a result one individual did things that interfered with the job performance of the other. The fact that they had a prior relationship doesn't excuse the behavior. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassm...
    - zone411 12y ago
      Then please point me to the part of this reference that applies. It states that "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when..." Those are not actions about which Pao complained to Lane.
      - nl 12y ago
        To expand your quote a little: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when 1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, 2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or 3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Pao discontinued the relationship, then Nazre started cutting her out of work. It's pretty easy to see a case that submitting to the sexual relationship was implicitly a term of her employment in the same role, or that after the relationship was discontinued her working environment became hostile.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Given that Lane and Nazre were already married when commencing relationships with other women whom they met in the workplace, and given that Lane's second wife was the one to relinquish her job, it's not hard to see how Pao would draw a similar inference. Of course, this is on top of the inappropriateness of responding to a HR complaint with rose-tinted anecdotes. EDIT to add the workplace parameter for clarity.
- zone411 12y ago
  Wouldn't a much more obvious reason that Lane's wife was the one to quit her job at Oracle be that he was a big star at Oracle, likely earning much more than his administrative assistant wife or that they decided to have kids, which causes women to drop out of workplace more often than men? Pao and Nazre were both partners. Instead, you're saying that Lane likely came up with some convoluted rules that the person who was already married will stay at the company, while the other person won't and he was trying to convey them to Pao using his own experiences 20 years ago at a different company as an example?
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    It's not convoluted at all; it's the simplest structure that comes out of his anecdote. He was asked a question about the appropriateness of personal relationships in the workplace. He could have addressed that without ever mentioning that his wife had quit working at Oracle; bringing that fact in created an inference, even if not intentional, that one of Pao or Nazre would have to go, or he could have added that the situations were in fact totally different.
    - zone411 12y ago
      If it's so simple, then please explain why it's not arbitrary that the previously married person gets to keep his/her job when a new relationship forms instead of the previously single person? And how is that simpler than my potential explanations (money and women raising kids) which are happening in practice all the time? Sure, he shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think anybody argues that it was a smart thing to do.

by zone411 12y ago

deveac 12y ago

By any interpretation, responding to a complaint that she was being retaliated against and a request for clearer HR policies regarding this with a suggestion that she and the man who was retaliating against her could have a good life though they probably wouldn't be able to work together...well that's damning enough. You don't need to suss out whether he was actually suggesting she or he quit for this to be the case.

trose 12y ago
EXACTLY. The _only_ appropriate response to an employee approaching you with a harassment complaint and asking for HR intervention would be to get a representative (sounds like they didnt have one) and a lawyer involved immediately. Followed by asking if she needs anything to continue working while feeling safe. What in the world was going through this guy's head?
- zone411 12y ago
  But she did not complain about harassment at that time. Based on Techcrunch's article, she was complaining about Nazre making her work more difficult by cutting her out of key work discussions and taking her out of e-mail threads.
  - jellicle 12y ago
    And why was Nazre doing that?
    - zone411 12y ago
      How about you tell me if you have a point to make?
    - tomp 12y ago
      They were in love/dating/having sex, then they broke up. It's pretty easy to see why he was upset. According to the saying, "don't shit where you eat", both of them could have known better before starting their relationship.
  - kaitai 12y ago
    How is that not harassment?
  - deveac 12y ago
    You just detailed the harassment.
zone411 12y ago
You're basing your "damning enough" opinion on Pao's statements when questioned by her own attorney. But Lane's testimony was: "I thought that it should be investigated, I thought that it should be responded to, but that it was up to her," which while not great, seems quite less damning. The grandparent also called it "credible," however when Pao was cross-examined about whether she asked if Kleiner maintained a policy that prohibited discrimination or harassment, she said "yes" on the stand and "no" in deposition, making her seem less than credible regarding asking for clearer HR policies in this incident.

pmorici 12y ago

The damning part isn't so much what is there as what isn't. The only appropriate response from a manager after being told by an employee about possible sexual harassment is to look into the facts and take action to correct the situation or fire the offender as the facts warrant.

zone411 12y ago
At that time she was complaining about a coworker making her work "more difficult" after their relationship ended. Do you believe this falls under sexual harassment?
- pmorici 12y ago
  Yes, that is pretty much a textbook legal definition of sexual harassment. A relationship was no longer welcome and as a result one individual did things that interfered with the job performance of the other. The fact that they had a prior relationship doesn't excuse the behavior. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassment http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+harassm...
  - zone411 12y ago
    Then please point me to the part of this reference that applies. It states that "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when..." Those are not actions about which Pao complained to Lane.
    - nl 12y ago
      To expand your quote a little: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when 1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, 2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or 3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Pao discontinued the relationship, then Nazre started cutting her out of work. It's pretty easy to see a case that submitting to the sexual relationship was implicitly a term of her employment in the same role, or that after the relationship was discontinued her working environment became hostile.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Given that Lane and Nazre were already married when commencing relationships with other women whom they met in the workplace, and given that Lane's second wife was the one to relinquish her job, it's not hard to see how Pao would draw a similar inference. Of course, this is on top of the inappropriateness of responding to a HR complaint with rose-tinted anecdotes. EDIT to add the workplace parameter for clarity.

zone411 12y ago
Wouldn't a much more obvious reason that Lane's wife was the one to quit her job at Oracle be that he was a big star at Oracle, likely earning much more than his administrative assistant wife or that they decided to have kids, which causes women to drop out of workplace more often than men? Pao and Nazre were both partners. Instead, you're saying that Lane likely came up with some convoluted rules that the person who was already married will stay at the company, while the other person won't and he was trying to convey them to Pao using his own experiences 20 years ago at a different company as an example?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  It's not convoluted at all; it's the simplest structure that comes out of his anecdote. He was asked a question about the appropriateness of personal relationships in the workplace. He could have addressed that without ever mentioning that his wife had quit working at Oracle; bringing that fact in created an inference, even if not intentional, that one of Pao or Nazre would have to go, or he could have added that the situations were in fact totally different.
  - zone411 12y ago
    If it's so simple, then please explain why it's not arbitrary that the previously married person gets to keep his/her job when a new relationship forms instead of the previously single person? And how is that simpler than my potential explanations (money and women raising kids) which are happening in practice all the time? Sure, he shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think anybody argues that it was a smart thing to do.