Ellen Pao Loses Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Well, it's all over but the crying. Ellen Pao, reddit's interim CEO, lost her gender discrimination suit against Kleiner Perkins.

Ellen Pao lost her gender discrimination lawsuit against former employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Friday, a closely watched trial that’s captivated Silicon Valley and served as a referendum on the challenges women have faced in the world of technology and business.
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
I hadn't been following this case, but it seems like it would be difficult for any single person to prove. Even when it happens to whole groups, as in the Walmart discrimination cases, there are incredibly high hurdles to overcome.
 

dr.kevin

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
3,053
it's hard to prove, but we all know it exists.

If you had a camera recording daily interactions 24/7, you'd probably have a good case.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
No idea who this is..... but not enough evidence? Tough luck. I'm sure there are gender discrimination instances, but there seems to be so much BS, that I can't figure out when it's true or not, so I'll just go with the courts on it.
 
5

5icko

Guest
Been following it since the beginning. She came off like a malcontent and the jury read the same thing.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
So we now find that on all counts Ellen Pao is full of crap, but what is the end result here? The bad publicity for the company means that in the future it will simply be cheaper, easier, and better from a public relations standpoint for most companies to promote any minority members of the staff that are aggressive.

Like false rape allegations, the accused has already lost even if they prove in court that on all counts the accusation is false. The damage is done.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
BTW, the linked article leaves out this tidbit:
Ms. Pao is married to Alphonse Fletcher Jr., a Wall Street financier whose hedge fund is bankrupt. Pension funds are suing to recover their money amid accusations of fraud.

Kleiner tried to insert Mr. Fletcher into the case, which would have raised questions about Ms. Pao’s motives in bringing suit, but the judge, Harold Kahn, refused to allow it.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
That's one thing that lost me... how does disallowing evidence work? Just seems weird to me. I sort of get it, if it's illegally obtained, but if it's just public knowledge... I dunno, seems odd to me.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
That's one thing that lost me... how does disallowing evidence work? Just seems weird to me. I sort of get it, if it's illegally obtained, but if it's just public knowledge... I dunno, seems odd to me.
No clue as it would certainly a relevant motivator for a money grab, and how is this for "retaliation":
Even after being fired by Kleiner in 2012, Ms. Pao was paid $33,333 a month for the next six months, plus benefits and bonus.
I would love to be fired for lack of performance, and then still get paid per month as much the average American makes in a year, plus benefits, and a bonus... and then still sue to company because my husband is about to lose his money and possibly go to jail due to fraud, lol! Only in America.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
Probably spent that money she got for the lawsuit then. I'd say only in america, but apparently some english countries has similar problems.
 

illram

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
1,466
That's one thing that lost me... how does disallowing evidence work? Just seems weird to me. I sort of get it, if it's illegally obtained, but if it's just public knowledge... I dunno, seems odd to me.

Basically evidence that does not actually have to do with the legal issues in the case, i.e., did Kleiner Perkins actually discriminate against her because she is a woman, is not admissible. Her personal motivations on why she brought the suit are not really relevant--or not relevant enough--to whether that actually happened. The shorthand legal terminology for this particular type of evidence being kept out is "more prejudicial than probative." The defense always is motivated to portray the plaintiff as money grubbing and desperate, just like plaintiffs want to portray corporations as evil rich oligarch villains--both types of evidence are usually restricted, except under specific circumstances (like if you need to fine a company to punish them, then it is relevant how much money they have.)

Could a juror go on PACER (the online public federal court system database) and look up her husband? Sure, but they're specifically instructed not to do their own research. If they do and it's discovered it's a retrial, potentially.
 

pothb

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
4,997
I get that. Where if it isn't relevant. But a possible motive seems like it would be, no?
 

illram

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
1,466
I get that. Where if it isn't relevant. But a possible motive seems like it would be, no?

Only tangentially. You could be more motivated to sue, but that does not necessarily mean what happened did or did not happen. Obviously, everyone has a financial motivation to sue, that's all the courts can ever really do for anyone is award money.

If your theory of the case is that I am lying about it just to make money, I suppose that there is a minuscule chance it comes in if you have some other evidence that I am in fact lying. Then maybe it becomes more relevant. It's just way too far afield otherwise. It's basically the "Chewbacca defense."

Judges want to avoid trials within trials and they also want to avoid introducing evidence whose effect is probably more likely to prejudice you against someone as opposed to just helping you figure out if something happened or not. This was a smart judge too, I have appeared before him many times. Excluding that evidence was the right call. In his order he said it would cause an "unseemly sideshow."
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
I don't see why the jury can't still use that piece of evidence as just one part of the puzzle.

She wasn't good at her job, she didn't get along with any of her coworkers, she would fanatically attach herself to other's successful investments already in the works and have the audacity to claim credit and commission (which likely did the most to piss off her coworkers), and she filed the lawsuit coincidentally the same month that her husband declared bankruptcy and is now being investigated for fraud.

Trust me, the more you read about her, the more you wonder who she knew to even get where she is.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
This is one of my favorite sub-reddits.
LOL, yeah they were hardcore censoring and IP banning all the information gathered on her for a while now, but word is that support for her is falling away so it may all now actually "stick". Cliffs notes is that she got the job because she was good friends with the ex-CEO who left for an idiotic reason (make all employees move to San Francisco or be fired, and when overruled he quit), got fired from her old job for being a douche to everyone there pathologically trying to steal others success and claim it as her own, and is in desperate need for money since her gay husband (and likely she had some involvement, I bet criminal charges will come shortly) fleeced over a hundred million bucks from cops and firemen.
 

evilsofa

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
10,078
LOL, yeah they were hardcore censoring and IP banning all the information gathered on her for a while now, but word is that support for her is falling away so it may all now actually "stick". Cliffs notes is that she

Are you assuming all of this is true because it was deleted on Reddit? Would you advocate eating dog vomit if Reddit deleted a thread about how good dog vomit tastes?
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
Are you assuming all of this is true because it was deleted on Reddit? Would you advocate eating dog vomit if Reddit deleted a thread about how good dog vomit tastes?
I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Its a fact that negative posts about Ellen Pao were censored on Reddit. Do you contest anything else I've posted, and based on what? And yes, I know it sounds pretty far fetched that her "husband" is gay and under investigation by the SEC for a ponzi-scheme and so now she's in financial distress and following the investigation may be brought up on criminal charges as well, but its true:
http://recode.net/2015/03/12/kleine...en-paos-husband-and-his-finances-judge-rules/
Prior to the trial, Kleiner Perkins had laid out a line of argument that centered on Fletcher, who’d filed for bankruptcy on behalf of his hedge fund and been found to have used firm assets improperly. Kleiner wants to talk about the hedge fund being a “Ponzi scheme” that’s under investigation by the SEC.

How does this relate to how Pao was treated Kleiner Perkins? It’s not entirely connected — as Pao is not responsible for her husband’s firm or his behavior — but Kleiner Perkins was served with a tax lien based on Fletcher’s financing, and Pao fought the liens. Kleiner might also want to squeeze in details like the fact that Fletcher had previously been in a long-term gay relationship before marrying Pao.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,540
And BTW, her husband has a history of suing for discrimination in past years as well, where he made a bunch of money in Alphonse Fletcher vs. Kidder Peabody and Alphonse Fletcher vs Dakota. BTW, even though her husband is a high-profile socialite, good luck finding any pictures at events where he's actually seen with his wife, lol!

All pics anyone can seem to find on the internet, if they are together, are photoshops of separate pictures where they are digitally inserted together: https://www.google.com/search?q=bud...f7gwTx1IDoCw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1280&bih=634
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,699
I don't see why the jury can't still use that piece of evidence as just one part of the puzzle.

She wasn't good at her job, she didn't get along with any of her coworkers, she would fanatically attach herself to other's successful investments already in the works and have the audacity to claim credit and commission (which likely did the most to piss off her coworkers), and she filed the lawsuit coincidentally the same month that her husband declared bankruptcy and is now being investigated for fraud.

Trust me, the more you read about her, the more you wonder who she knew to even get where she is.

All of the above things are very effective ways to move up in the ranks at least in the early times. When I deal with managers at low levels I find a lot of the are deplorable people. Maybe its just because such deplorable people get decent results early on. But just like any used car salesman as you try to move up the ranks it becomes harder and harder to hide your deficiencies and as you try to get bigger word about how bad you are spreads. So basically I am not surprised.
 

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,003


That's a man, baby.
 
Joined
Jul 20, 2013
Messages
524
LOL, yeah they were hardcore censoring and IP banning all the information gathered on her for a while now, but word is that support for her is falling away so it may all now actually "stick". Cliffs notes is that she got the job because she was good friends with the ex-CEO who left for an idiotic reason (make all employees move to San Francisco or be fired, and when overruled he quit), got fired from her old job for being a douche to everyone there pathologically trying to steal others success and claim it as her own, and is in desperate need for money since her gay husband (and likely she had some involvement, I bet criminal charges will come shortly) fleeced over a hundred million bucks from cops and firemen.

thanks. gender discrimination? no, she just sucks
 

redrage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
503
it's hard to prove, but we all know it exists.

If you had a camera recording daily interactions 24/7, you'd probably have a good case.

if anyone had a camera following them 24/7 they would have a case for something regardless. Probably get arrested or fined for one of the things they did illegally that day... one of them probably breaking someones privacy law :)
 
Top