8 ms·
Kleiner Perkins seeks legal fees or dropped case from Ellen Pao
- petercooper 11y agoOther court filings revealed that last November, Kleiner had offered Ms. Pao $964,502 to settle, an amount based on the projected costs of the case. That she didn't accept the settlement says a lot for her belief in the case (or, at the very least, her odds of winning).
- adventured 11y agoIt's hard to tell whether her position was more financial gambling or principle (that is, who knows). She sought $16 million - http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27444497/ellen-pao-seeking-16-million-sex-discrimination-lawsuit http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27444497/ellen-pao-se... She clearly believed monetary compensation was important as part of the case. So then the question becomes, what % of a likelihood of victory would you need to believe in, to go after $16m vs $964k. Or alternatively, perhaps $964k is such a (relatively) modest sum for the context, that it simply wasn't a consideration for her. She can probably earn more than that writing a book about the ordeal.
- SeoxyS 11y agoShe was seeking $16M in lost wages, and potentially much more in punitive damages. I think, had she won, she could be looking at a ridiculous check close to $100M.
- adventured 11y agoCorrect, the punitive damages aspect was immense: "Ellen Pao can sue Kleiner Perkins for up to $160 million in damages" http://www.businessinsider.com/ellen-pao-can-sue-kleiner-perkins-for-damages-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/ellen-pao-can-sue-kleiner-per... http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27760383/judge-ellen-pao-may-claim-punitive-damages-kleiner http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_27760383/judge-ellen-...
- abalone 11y agoIt's not clear that winning would have involved punitive damages. That typically requires a much higher threshold of egregious intent to cause harm, which I think it's fair to say is not as well supported by the facts and testimony here. Not that it'd be an impossible outcome, but much less likely.
- Devthrowaway80 11y agoIncidentally, her husband was in the hole to the tune of $16 million, which I imagine had nothing to do with how much money she was seeking.
- objclxt 11y agoCertainly the judge thought it had nothing to do with it, which is why it couldn't be introduced as evidence.
- asillystory 11y agoAll the articles I've looked at say her husband owes way more than $16 million. Where did you get that number?
- frozenport 11y agoOr perhaps reflects poorly on her competency as a would-be partner.
- elchief 11y agoThat's a pretty good estimate!
- def_illiterate 11y ago>“If Kleiner wanted to look classy, it could have said, ‘This was hard fought and we obviously disagree with your view, but it’s in the interest of all parties to walk away. In the meantime, there have been lessons learned and we are going to fund organizations that focus on glass ceiling issues,’ ” Ms. Katz said. Just donate to my rainbow coalition...
- alexqgb 11y agoWhat they actually said was "Promise not to pursue this case any further or pay us $1 million."
- pyre 11y ago> "Promise not to pursue this case any further or we will try to collect $1 million from you" Fixed that for you. There is no guarantee that they will recover all or part of those costs if they decide to pursue it.
- def_illiterate 11y agoYep! And I quoted the article's quote from a critic. I felt it was worth pointing out one of the most patently ridiculous things I've ever heard, and the fact that it was given play really tells you how the NYT leans.
- alexqgb 11y agoIt's a mistake to think of the NYT as a monolithic entity that deliberately leans one way or another. I've got a few friends who work there, and they all report that "the" Times is actually about five distinct fiefdoms engaged in a constant battle with one another. It's a real shark tank, politically speaking, and not the kind of place with the sort of absolutist, top-down structure (like, say, Bloomberg) that's conducive to straight party lines. That said, it was a bullshit link-bait headline buy hey, traffic, right?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- codinghorror 11y agoRevenge: a dish best not served at all.
- zxcvvcxz 11y agoGood for Kleiner. It seems their reputation was being dragged through the mud on a merit-less case of "she said they said". No factual evidence was presented justifying Pao's viewpoints. Before you downvote, please provide factual evidence and I will gladly update this comment.
- jegutman 11y agoThere were performance reviews that said she did well, they were mixed and complicated like all performance reviews. Also given that the defense tried to discredit her by noting that she sent e-mails to herself it seems strange to call "she said they said" invalid evidence since without those e-mails there would be nothing at all. What would hard evidence even be for this type of case? Is there going to be an e-mail between partners saying "we should not promote Ellen because she's a woman"? Did Ellen Pao prove her case conclusively? I think not. Was it clear that there were plenty of issues going on at the time that Kleiner could've handled a lot better? I think so.
- zxcvvcxz 11y agoEven perfect performance reviews doesn't entitle one to be promoted. Why does everyone have this idea in their head, that if they cross all the t's and dot all the i's the world is going to reward them? Are we really going to start to sue over disillusionment?
- tw04 11y agoWhen a woman who has perfect reviews is passed over for a promotion by a man who doesn't... ya, they have some room to be pissed off and gripe. And yes, if you do everything your employer asks of you and then some, you should be rewarded. What is this world coming to when doing so is considered "average"?
- phamilton 11y agoIf a promotion is available, then you are probably right. But if no position is available you could be the perfect employee and not get a promotion and there would be nothing wrong with that.
- dirkdk 11y agoSo Kleiner spent $972,815 on their defense. That is absurd amount of money, and I am sure Ellen Pao did not have those kind of funds. That also made it hard for her to win this case
- feybay 11y agoThe fact that she was clearly in the wrong also made it a hard case for Pao to win.
- PsychopompPoet 11y agoChecks out -- lit up red on my Clearly-in-the-wrong-o-meter
- boling11 11y agoMany lawyers will work on contingency (you split the winnings if you win) if they believe you have a strong case...
- dudurocha 11y agoI think the title is a bit misleading. Kleiner Perkins is asking Ellen to pay for its legal fees or simply " if she forgoes any appeal and lets the case die, the firm will forgive and forget, or at least move on."
- RockyMcNuts 11y agoyeah, it's really, let's put this behind us, and we'll waive any claims we might have, and BTW this is how much it cost us that you might be liable for.
- choppaface 11y agoYes the NYT title is a bit off. Pao was always on the hook for those fees, and KP is offering to waive them if she doesn't appeal. Note that KP already filed a separate countersuit, which brought Pao's husband to the attention of the media, before the main case began. WSJ also says Pao is not outright rejecting the legal fees deal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-41461 http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-41461
- dang 11y agoThanks, we changed the title to try to reflect this.
- zxcvcxz 11y agoI don't understand all the defending of Pao on HN. She was pretty clearly in the wrong and there is not much evidence to the contrary. It's counter-productive to the cause of gender equality to continue to defend her.
- weixiyen 11y agowhat is your deal?
- zxcvcxz 11y agoI'm afraid I don't understand what it is you're asking. If you could clarify I'd be glad to go into the details of my "deal".
- weixiyen 11y agoThe deal being what is the point of posting 2 top level comments with the exact same content and intent. Asking not to get downvoted unless people provide evidence, and you not providing any evidence for starters.
- colmvp 11y agoThere were definitely some erroneous or unsubstantiated claims she made in the court, some of which was testified against by people who she quoted.
- 11y ago
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- monochromatic 11y ago> “If Kleiner wanted to look classy, it could have said, ‘This was hard fought and we obviously disagree with your view, but it’s in the interest of all parties to walk away. In the meantime, there have been lessons learned and we are going to fund organizations that focus on glass ceiling issues,’ ” Ms. Katz said. Here in non-fantasy land, why would anyone do as Ms. Katz suggests?
- obstinate 11y agoYou quoted the reason -- looking/being classy. If you value that more than a million dollars, and a good many do, and you felt said action would have that effect, you might choose to do it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- serve_yay 11y ago"To look classy" has to be the silliest reason posited that a business would do something. For a lot of people, the "classy" ship has already sailed vis a vis Kleiner.
- zamalek 11y agoI think it's important that a precedent is set. Pao was being marginally more creative than patent trolls. The legal system needs to demonstrate that making a joke of discrimination, from both sides of the coin (by participating in it, or by crying wolf), will not be tolerated. There are millions of people facing real discrimination issues and Pao made a joke of them all by trying to turn their struggle into her profit.
- dietrichepp 11y agoIt's also important to note that being unable to prove your case in court is not the same thing as crying wolf. You make a frivolous lawsuit, you get punished, yes. But I have not heard arguments to support the idea that Pao made the claim in bad faith, or negligently.
- zamalek 11y agoLegally: yes. However, the deluge of evidence contradicting discrimination was loud and clear. From a logical (not legal) standpoint you would have to be incredibly stupid to not notice that other women are getting ahead in your company, and Pao isn't stupid. Smaller companies cannot defend themselves against patent trolls. What's to stop Pao would-bes from taking advantage of that fact too? How would that affect the female position in the job market? It seems reasonable that you don't drag someone through a $900000 lawsuit on a weak hunch. This "discovery" bullshit is exactly how patent trolls get away with what they do. In ethical wars there are some battles you don't want to win, and some that should never even take place. Everyone sits on a distinct side of the fence and when they see blood they go for it, it's pathetic and ultimately weakens their position. It's about reaching a compromise and $900000 is not a compromise. Kleiner is being the bigger person here and suggesting that everyone walk away from this, yes it does have PR implication for them, but it is ultimately the right thing to do.
- dietrichepp 11y ago> From a logical (not legal) standpoint you would have to be incredibly stupid to not notice that other women are getting ahead in your company, and Pao isn't stupid. I don't see any deluge of women getting ahead at Kleiner Perkins. In fact, it does seem like an overwhelmingly male environment. > Smaller companies cannot defend themselves against patent trolls. What's to stop Pao would-bes from taking advantage of that fact too? How would that affect the female position in the job market? Patent trolls use the threat of costly litigation to pressure smaller companies into settlement. Pao's suit was costly on both sides, but she was not trying to pressure them into settling. First of all, they did offer a $1M settlement, and she pursued the case anyway. This is at least strong evidence that she thought that she would prevail in court. Secondly, there was no risk that Kleiner Perkins would go bankrupt from the costs of litigation. They're a venture capital firm, for crying out loud, they have lots of capital. I'm not saying that it's okay to sue Kleiner Perkins because they have deep pockets, I'm saying that she's not using the threat of bankruptcy to coerce a settlement out of them. > It seems reasonable that you don't drag someone through a $900000 lawsuit on a weak hunch. This "discovery" bullshit is exactly how patent trolls get away with what they do. Patent trolls, again, rely on the fact that expensive discovery proceedings can bankrupt a company before they are able to successfully defend a patent lawsuit. As we've established, that was not an issue here. Discovery serves a useful legal purpose: you need evidence to pursue a case, and without legal force behind a request for evidence, Kleiner Perkins would have no reason to provide it. You can't issue subpoenas without filing the suit first, because you need to show that your suit has merit and that you have standing before you can begin discovery. Now, there have been actual abuses of the discovery process. This just isn't one of them. Pao lost, so she compensates Kleiner Perkins for their expenses, or she accepts their offer. I don't see why "being wrong in court" would be worthy of punishment.