Kleiner Perkins seeks legal fees or dropped case from Ellen Pao

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/technology/kleiner-perkins-seeks-nearly-1-million-from-ellen-pao.html?module=WatchingPortal&region=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=thumb_square&state=standard&contentPlacement=1&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2015%2F04%2F24%2Ftechnology%2Fkleiner-perkins-seeks-nearly-1-million-from-ellen-pao.html&eventName=Watching-article-click

by nsfmc • 11 years ago

109 94 11 years ago

nytimes.com

petercooper• 11 years ago

Other 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).

adventured2• 11 years ago

It'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-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• 11 years ago

She 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.

Devthrowaway80• 11 years ago

Incidentally, 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.

frozenport• 11 years ago

Or perhaps reflects poorly on her competency as a would-be partner.

elchief• 11 years ago

That's a pretty good estimate!

def_illiterate2• 11 years 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...

alexqgb2• 11 years ago

What they actually said was "Promise not to pursue this case any further or pay us $1 million."

pyre3• 11 years 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_illiterate2• 11 years ago

Yep! 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.

codinghorror• 11 years ago

Revenge: a dish best not served at all.

bigdubs• 11 years ago

Wouldn't she owe $0 if she doesn't appeal?

bandrami• 11 years ago

But she could get $100M if she appeals and wins. Paging Mr. Pascal...

zxcvvcxz2• 11 years ago

Good 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.

jegutman3• 11 years ago

There 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.

zxcvvcxz2• 11 years ago

Even 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?

MagicWishMonkey• 11 years ago

Doing well in performance reviews doesn't mean much. It was pretty clear that she was not easy to work with, and a lot of her coworkers didn't like working with her. I have no doubt that she was a brilliant employee, but that doesn't really matter if no one wants to work with her.

There's a reason why so many companies put a lot of emphasis on "culture fit".

tsotha3• 11 years ago

She slept with a coworker. Who does this without realizing one of you may have to go?

untog• 11 years ago

I don't know. Any details of the case aside, "shut up or pay $1m" doesn't ever look very dignified. Besides, by doing this they've put the case back in the news again - leave it and it goes away.

echoless• 11 years ago

How would it go away? Ellen Pao's going to appeal against the verdict which will lead to Kleiner-Perkins being in the news again.

tomasien3• 11 years ago

I reject your plea not to downvote - not because I disagree (that is not an appropriate reason to downvote a comment on HN from my understanding) but because of two things:

1. You said "good for Kleiner". Whether you agree or not, KPCB is massive firm now asking threatening a $1MM suit against an individual who had good faith claims and that just feels really icky to be called "good". I'm fully aware that the burden of proof for damages rests with the plaintiff and she failed that claim, however this is nowhere near the frivolous lawsuit standard. I am going to also reject your plea for factual evidence because I'm not doing your research for you in this instance, but read over some summary judgements in frivolous lawsuit claims that have been ruled in the plaintiffs favor and compare it to the facts of this case.

2. You asked not to be downvoted. Pleas w/r/t voting do not belong on vote based social networks and forums. They are purely manipulative.

res0nat0r• 11 years ago

You probably would be taking a different tone if it were you whom was personally sued by someone which cost you a million dollars out of pocket, and then have every claim against you dismissed.

Why should KPCB be any different in trying to recover money from a court case they won on every count? Just because they have $X amount of money more than you or I?

cbd19844• 11 years ago

an individual who had good faith claims

How do you know this?

supercanuck• 11 years ago

Then why was it an 8-4 vote? Didnt it come down to one juror?

binxbolling• 11 years ago

Wow, it's super brave of you to be defending those poor maligned billionaires. Takes a lot of courage to stand up for an underdog like KPCB.

SG-• 11 years ago

Isn't she super rich too and a big CEO? Anyways, it's silly to take a side simply because one side has more money than the other, that has nothing to do with it.

michaelochurch2• 11 years ago

It wasn't a frivolous or "merit-less" case.

Before she initiated the lawsuit, she did not know what would be found in discovery. From her standpoint at the time, a suspicion of gender discrimination was valid. She hoped to find a "smoking gun" in discovery.

There was no smoking gun, and she was far from a sympathetic or innocent plaintiff (the affair with Mr. Nazre really killed her) so she lost.

Every bit of testimony from a Kleiner employee should be thrown out, at least on subjective matters like job performance. A person who is employed by one party or the other cannot possibly be expected to give a valid representation. No one's going to testify against someone who can end his career inside of a couple months (obviously with phony performance reviews, because no employer will admit to firing someone over inconvenient testimony).

Do I think that the jury made the right call? Sadly, I'd say "yes". I think that she did end up on the wrong side of an exclusionary culture (that may have been for reasons other than her gender; you never know if it's ethnicity or gender or health or age, the last of which can cut against young or old depending on the group) and was therefore evaluated inaccurately and unfairly. She failed to prove it, though. It would have been very different if discovery had brought forward a smoking gun that proves gendered discrimination... which didn't happen, but there's no way she could have possibly known that.

This is the thing about discrimination that most HN posters don't get. It's not like the people who are guilty of it (and there are many, along age and gender and ethnic and class lines) make it obvious. They don't. It's a silent crime. Most of the time, the victims have no idea that it is happening. They might have suspicions, but it's hard as hell to prove. Ellen Pao tried to do so and came close, but ultimately failed in proving anything conclusive.

Natsu5• 11 years ago

Making claims one is unable to substantiate and dragging a case through discovery is normally considered an abuse of the legal system, as we saw in, e.g. SCO vs. IBM, where they also hoped to be able to eventually find an IBM document somewhere that might prove them right.

The fact that they did not find any such "smoking gun" after all that legal discovery makes me believe that they are honest, as that means they couldn't find anything at all after a lot of searching.

yuhong• 11 years ago

I am thinking of removing anti-discrimination laws completely (not just to create exceptions) and allowing regulators (such as anti-trust) to impose anti-discrimination conditions on specific companies instead.

dirkdk• 11 years ago

So 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• 11 years ago

The fact that she was clearly in the wrong also made it a hard case for Pao to win.

PsychopompPoet• 11 years ago

Checks out -- lit up red on my Clearly-in-the-wrong-o-meter

boling11• 11 years ago

Many lawyers will work on contingency (you split the winnings if you win) if they believe you have a strong case...

dudurocha• 11 years ago

I 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• 11 years ago

yeah, 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• 11 years ago

Yes 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

dang• 11 years ago

Thanks, we changed the title to try to reflect this.

zxcvcxz3• 11 years ago

I 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.

weixiyen3• 11 years ago

what is your deal?

zxcvcxz3• 11 years ago

I'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".

colmvp• 11 years ago

There were definitely some erroneous or unsubstantiated claims she made in the court, some of which was testified against by people who she quoted.

codezero• 11 years ago

She lost the case. Sure. Can you enumerate why you are asserting she was "pretty clearly in the wrong?"

monochromatic• 11 years 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?

obstinate2• 11 years ago

You 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.

serve_yay• 11 years 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.

zamalek4• 11 years ago

I 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.

dietrichepp4• 11 years ago

It'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.

zamalek4• 11 years ago

Legally: 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.

Kleiner Perkins seeks legal fees or dropped case from Ellen Pao

Related Stories