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

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."