4 ms·

Agreed. It's become too distracting and polarizing. What really screws up this tale is -- it's not a case of "unwanted advances." The fact that she says 'he

Agreed. It's become too distracting and polarizing. What really screws up this tale is -- it's not a case of "unwanted advances." The fact that she says 'he made repeated unwanted advances' is simply NOT TRUE. I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true. If you're aware of the history of what transpired for the entire length of time that Pao and Nazre you already know she's a liar. If I was on the KPCB legal team, I'd have to point out this fallacious claim she's made. Once you can show that a complainant is a liar -- it will destroy the rest of their case. If the complainant is willing to go on record and make a false statement to the court -- it's game over.

voltagex_ 12y ago
>I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true Why not?
- meric 12y ago
  I don't think unwanted advances is or should be illegal unless you make workplace relationships illegal too - since for a relationship to happen an 'advance' was required in the first place. Otherwise you'd make successful advances legal and rejected advances illegal, which basically means "Lockup all the rejects in jail." Pao and Nazre ended up in a relationship so those advances were only part of the courting process. He was a dick for lying about his spouse but lying to get into a relationship isn't illegal. What's in front of the jury is whether there was misconduct company and its employees in handling the situation post Pao-Nazre breakup.
- youngButEager 12y ago
  Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. But stay tuned to the case -- although attorneys know to drag things out to generate billable hours, eventually this will come up in the case. If you re-read the complaint, with decent reading comprehension you'll get it. HINT: "I came to HR because I'm being harassed by a male colleague that I'm never, ever going to date in any way shape or form, and he still keeps making advances, he won't stop, I need help from the company." Now that would be a solid case.
  - javert 12y ago
    > Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. Just going out on a limb, but it sounds like you might be trying to say: I know this to be objectively true, but there is no way for me to prove it to you. That is a common situation that we as humans don't seem to have a name for, but probably should. (FYI, I did not downvote... in fact I upvoted your comment.)
    - youngButEager 12y ago
      The history of the case is all out there. KPCB was going to fire Nazre. But Pao petitioned the leadership not to. The complaint/lawsuit from Pao is: "Nazre was harrassing me. And KPCB wouldn't do anything about it. That's gender discrimination." HERE ARE THE FACTS. 1) she had a consensual relationship with Nazre. 2) when she complained she was being 'harrassed', John Doerr -- the main guy at KPCB -- was going to fire Nazre. But Pao talked the company out of that. At each step in her construction of a possible lawsuit, she was complicit. Dated Nazre. Complained about Nazre after they split. Petitioned KPCB not to fire Nazre. It's all a load of crap from the outset. If this was a clean case, where the complainant had zero complicity, ie. "a coworker is making unwanted advances" and the firm did nothing, well okay. But that's not what happened. "After learning [from Pao] of Nazre's behavior, Doerr was angry with him and wanted to fire him. But Pao opposed, sending e-mails to senior partners urging them to help Nazre rather than fire him."
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        The decision whether or not to fire Nazre was above Pao's pay grade. It was also above Doerr's or anyone else's. If it can be determined that someone is sexually harassing coworkers, in this context, he must be fired. Otherwise the firm deserves the lawsuits it is sure to get.

voltagex_ 12y ago

>I'm not even going to elucidate WHY what she said is patently not true Why not?

meric 12y ago
I don't think unwanted advances is or should be illegal unless you make workplace relationships illegal too - since for a relationship to happen an 'advance' was required in the first place. Otherwise you'd make successful advances legal and rejected advances illegal, which basically means "Lockup all the rejects in jail." Pao and Nazre ended up in a relationship so those advances were only part of the courting process. He was a dick for lying about his spouse but lying to get into a relationship isn't illegal. What's in front of the jury is whether there was misconduct company and its employees in handling the situation post Pao-Nazre breakup.
youngButEager 12y ago
Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. But stay tuned to the case -- although attorneys know to drag things out to generate billable hours, eventually this will come up in the case. If you re-read the complaint, with decent reading comprehension you'll get it. HINT: "I came to HR because I'm being harassed by a male colleague that I'm never, ever going to date in any way shape or form, and he still keeps making advances, he won't stop, I need help from the company." Now that would be a solid case.
- javert 12y ago
  > Well it would be condescending to those of us who know the history of the two at KPCB to point out the obvious. Just going out on a limb, but it sounds like you might be trying to say: I know this to be objectively true, but there is no way for me to prove it to you. That is a common situation that we as humans don't seem to have a name for, but probably should. (FYI, I did not downvote... in fact I upvoted your comment.)
  - youngButEager 12y ago
    The history of the case is all out there. KPCB was going to fire Nazre. But Pao petitioned the leadership not to. The complaint/lawsuit from Pao is: "Nazre was harrassing me. And KPCB wouldn't do anything about it. That's gender discrimination." HERE ARE THE FACTS. 1) she had a consensual relationship with Nazre. 2) when she complained she was being 'harrassed', John Doerr -- the main guy at KPCB -- was going to fire Nazre. But Pao talked the company out of that. At each step in her construction of a possible lawsuit, she was complicit. Dated Nazre. Complained about Nazre after they split. Petitioned KPCB not to fire Nazre. It's all a load of crap from the outset. If this was a clean case, where the complainant had zero complicity, ie. "a coworker is making unwanted advances" and the firm did nothing, well okay. But that's not what happened. "After learning [from Pao] of Nazre's behavior, Doerr was angry with him and wanted to fire him. But Pao opposed, sending e-mails to senior partners urging them to help Nazre rather than fire him."
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      The decision whether or not to fire Nazre was above Pao's pay grade. It was also above Doerr's or anyone else's. If it can be determined that someone is sexually harassing coworkers, in this context, he must be fired. Otherwise the firm deserves the lawsuits it is sure to get.