5 ms·

Not to take away from the merits of her case at all (which is still to be decided), but she is probably not hurting for money. She was earning what, $500,000 (

Not to take away from the merits of her case at all (which is still to be decided), but she is probably not hurting for money. She was earning what, $500,000 (i.e. half a million) a year at Kleiner? The USD 16 million she's seeking in damages is for lost income (apparently she could have earned up to $3 million a year if she got promoted at Kleiner). Not to mention her current husband is Alphonse 'Buddy' Fletcher Jr, an ex-hedge fund manager, who also sued his former employee in a $1.3 million lawsuit for discrimination. (Ironically, he's also been sued himself by two guys for sexual harassment, and apparently lost, but that was settled privately, so we don't know how much that was for). Either way, neither Pao nor her husband are hurting for cash. All the players on both sides are probably living in some stratospheric world that ordinary Joes like you and I probably can't even fathom.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago
It really isn't the point. Yes she earns multiples more than me, but on the partner track at kleiner she would expect to make millions. Chucking her out because she is a woman (or gay or not white or whatever) is an offence. We punish offences because that is what a fair society does. Even if the victim is not sympathetic or "one of us". In fact the last reason is the reason we have these laws - to defend people who are not one of us. Plus it is good to remind everyone once in a while that the law is in charge, not money, not anti-terrorism sentiment, not administrations. The law. It takes a battering, so it needs the occasional public win.
- victorhooi 12y ago
  I think you need to re-read my comment again. As I mentioned, the merits of her case haven't been decided in either direction - let's all wait for the judgement. However, I'm pointing out this whole ludicrous "she's one of us!", and "occasional public win!" is pretty absurd. Here in Australia, we love rooting for the underdog, but as I said, none of the parties in this case are underdogs. It's not like Kleiner is able to out-lawyer her. I mean, really? She's a lawyer, married to a ex-hedge fund manager (who has previously successfully sued for discrimination, and ironically been sued himself as well) - they have oodles of experience, and millions to fund this to completion. To me, this is just a case of two adversaries, slogging it out in a civil case. Kleiner is trying to slant this as, office relationship gone wrong, and Pao has sour grapes. Pao is trying to slant this as, company was out to get me because I'm a woman, and they are a bunch of misogynistic pigs. If there was wrong here, I'd want justice meted out to the wrongful party. However, I don't for a minute think that Pao (or Kleiner) is on "my team", or that either party represents the voice of the people. They're just two rich parties, slogging it out, and we should hope that justice will prevail.
  - lifeisstillgood 12y ago
    I was agreeing that she is outrageously well placed to take them on. She is definitely "not one of us" if us are people with net worth below a couple of million. But ironically the laws she is using are there to defend individuals from discrimination by those who might say that individual is "not one of us". I do not see this as two rich adversaries, the outcome of which is of little consequence or interest. I see this as an unusual example of one rich and powerful interest (Kleiner) (who represents what apparently is a deep and entrenched vein of misogyny in IT/VC and that vein has anecdotally been using it's power to discriminate in this fashion and get away with it) and an alleged victim of discrimination who happens to be rich/powerful enough to put up a fight. I do happen to think that, like women only short lists, women only funds are likely to be in our future.
    - victorhooi 12y ago
      Reading your comment, I suspect in many ways you have already decided on the "right" and "wrong" party in your head (e.g. look at your description of Kleiner). I don't have a horse in this race, and nor have I pre-decided the outcome - let's wait for the courts. It could go either way - either somebody is crying wolf, or somebody discriminated against an employee, and stopped their promotion. It may take some time for this to churn through the courts, and an outcome to be decided - I suspect much of the mob may already have moved on and lost interest by then...lol. And I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of your last sentence. There wasn't any reasoning or context attached to the statement, so I'm not really sure how I should reply.
nedwin 12y ago
Buddy isn't doing as well as he was in the past. In 2010 allegations arose that he couldn't afford to pay his mortgage and in 2011 one of his major sources of capital for his hedge fund requested that he return their funds. They're now suing him. The timeline is that just as his legal/financial issues reach a crescendo Ellen files a lawsuit. Personally I think they're more than likely unrelated but it's unfortunate timing.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

It really isn't the point. Yes she earns multiples more than me, but on the partner track at kleiner she would expect to make millions. Chucking her out because she is a woman (or gay or not white or whatever) is an offence. We punish offences because that is what a fair society does. Even if the victim is not sympathetic or "one of us". In fact the last reason is the reason we have these laws - to defend people who are not one of us. Plus it is good to remind everyone once in a while that the law is in charge, not money, not anti-terrorism sentiment, not administrations. The law. It takes a battering, so it needs the occasional public win.

victorhooi 12y ago
I think you need to re-read my comment again. As I mentioned, the merits of her case haven't been decided in either direction - let's all wait for the judgement. However, I'm pointing out this whole ludicrous "she's one of us!", and "occasional public win!" is pretty absurd. Here in Australia, we love rooting for the underdog, but as I said, none of the parties in this case are underdogs. It's not like Kleiner is able to out-lawyer her. I mean, really? She's a lawyer, married to a ex-hedge fund manager (who has previously successfully sued for discrimination, and ironically been sued himself as well) - they have oodles of experience, and millions to fund this to completion. To me, this is just a case of two adversaries, slogging it out in a civil case. Kleiner is trying to slant this as, office relationship gone wrong, and Pao has sour grapes. Pao is trying to slant this as, company was out to get me because I'm a woman, and they are a bunch of misogynistic pigs. If there was wrong here, I'd want justice meted out to the wrongful party. However, I don't for a minute think that Pao (or Kleiner) is on "my team", or that either party represents the voice of the people. They're just two rich parties, slogging it out, and we should hope that justice will prevail.
- lifeisstillgood 12y ago
  I was agreeing that she is outrageously well placed to take them on. She is definitely "not one of us" if us are people with net worth below a couple of million. But ironically the laws she is using are there to defend individuals from discrimination by those who might say that individual is "not one of us". I do not see this as two rich adversaries, the outcome of which is of little consequence or interest. I see this as an unusual example of one rich and powerful interest (Kleiner) (who represents what apparently is a deep and entrenched vein of misogyny in IT/VC and that vein has anecdotally been using it's power to discriminate in this fashion and get away with it) and an alleged victim of discrimination who happens to be rich/powerful enough to put up a fight. I do happen to think that, like women only short lists, women only funds are likely to be in our future.
  - victorhooi 12y ago
    Reading your comment, I suspect in many ways you have already decided on the "right" and "wrong" party in your head (e.g. look at your description of Kleiner). I don't have a horse in this race, and nor have I pre-decided the outcome - let's wait for the courts. It could go either way - either somebody is crying wolf, or somebody discriminated against an employee, and stopped their promotion. It may take some time for this to churn through the courts, and an outcome to be decided - I suspect much of the mob may already have moved on and lost interest by then...lol. And I'm sorry, but I don't know what to make of your last sentence. There wasn't any reasoning or context attached to the statement, so I'm not really sure how I should reply.

nedwin 12y ago

Buddy isn't doing as well as he was in the past. In 2010 allegations arose that he couldn't afford to pay his mortgage and in 2011 one of his major sources of capital for his hedge fund requested that he return their funds. They're now suing him. The timeline is that just as his legal/financial issues reach a crescendo Ellen files a lawsuit. Personally I think they're more than likely unrelated but it's unfortunate timing.