Post: #26

Let's call it what it is..this is just a form of extortion. It has nothing to do with rights or feminism or anything really. It's a cynical cash grab. In this case it's all about how good the lawyers are on each side. High balling with a 16 mill figure makes it very apparent she's trying to push for a big settlement. The worst thing they can do is settle. Take her to court to deter other future extortion attempts. Don't negotiate with terrorists.

Post: #27

(03-17-2015 05:26 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  Let's call it what it is..this is just a form of extortion. It has nothing to do with rights or feminism or anything really. It's a cynical cash grab. In this case it's all about how good the lawyers are on each side. High balling with a 16 mill figure makes it very apparent she's trying to push for a big settlement. The worst thing they can do is settle. Take her to court to deter other future extortion attempts. Don't negotiate with terrorists.

Yeah her husband is some type of hedge fund fraud whose having money trouble (bankrupt I think). They're trying to game the system for $$$.

Post: #28

Yesterday, the judge Harold Kahn expressed skepticism to Pao's legal team that adequate evidence exists for punitive damages. He can decide in favor of defense's motion and not instruct the jury to decide on the matter.

Re/code has not been neutral in their reporting, but remarkably they seem to be the only ones who picked up on this.

http://recode.net/2015/03/17/judge-says-...e-damages/

Quote:Judge Says Pao Needs to Do Better to Prove Case for Punitive Damages

March 17, 2015, 6:10 PM PDT

The judge presiding over Ellen Pao’s gender discrimination and harassment trial versus her former employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers thinks her side has not established a case for punitive damages, he said today.

At the end of the day, after the jury and the crowds had left, the judge gathered back in court with lawyers from both sides for an on-the-record discussion of some of Kleiner Perkins’ concerns in the case.

Kleiner Perkins had filed two “motions for non-suit” following the completion of the plaintiff’s weeks-long argument — basically, a standard procedural task. One was on the grounds of punitive damages and another on the recurring issue of damages based on stock.

And in a surprise, Judge Harold Kahn said he is actually considering granting the motion for non-suit over punitive damages, because he doesn’t think Pao’s side has presented adequate evidence. Keep in mind: This would not throw out the entire case; Pao could still win the $16 million in damages she’s asked for, just not unspecified punitive damages.

“What evidence is there of malice, fraud or oppression (the standard for punitive damages in California law) by someone at Kleiner Perkins?” Kahn asked.

Pao’s lawyer Alan Exelrod replied, “Despicable conduct runs through this case. For example, there’s the basic causes of action itself — failure to promote women to partners. That conduct alone could be viewed with appropriate malice.”

“I’m gonna cut to the chase here,” Kahn said. “This is troubling me.” He asked Exelrod to write down on paper within the next 24 hours the reasons Pao deserved punitive damages based on case law in the civil rights area of employment law.

Exelrod argued to Kahn that Kleiner Perkins partners are “highly exaggerating Ms. Pao’s interpersonal issues.” “This whole case is about emails she sent to her admin or interactions with Matt Murphy,” he said. “You heard Mr. Komisar talk about betraying him. It’s all about her personality.”

Kahn replied, “Malice, fraud or oppression has to be based on the facts as they actually occurred to the parties involved. To me, I look at this case in a very, very legalistic way. Has Ms. Pao proved each of her claims by a proponderance of the evidence, and has she proved her damages, and has Kleiner Perkins proved any offset of those damages.”

Exelrod persisted, saying that he’d proved that Chi-Hua Chien and Ajit Nazre, two partners hostile to Pao, gave input on a negative performance review that was “covered up.” Kahn asked for the pertinent law in the case. Exelrod asked for more than 24 hours to lay it out.

Kahn replied, “I’m a realist. I’d rather you give me your best shot and me take my best shot during the time that really matters.”

Looks like the case is weakening.

Post: #29

(03-14-2015 07:35 AM)Horus Wrote:  There should be a photo of the greedy bitch on here to really know what we're dealing with.

I bet she's just a bundle of fun to be around. There's surely a correlation between a woman prematurely going grey and being a cunt.

This pussy of hers isn't worth 16 cents much less 16M dollars.

Post: #30

(03-19-2015 12:31 AM)MidJack Wrote:  Yesterday, the judge Harold Kahn expressed skepticism to Pao's legal team that adequate evidence exists for punitive damages. He can decide in favor of defense's motion and not instruct the jury to decide on the matter.

Quote:Pao’s lawyer Alan Exelrod replied, “Despicable conduct runs through this case. For example, there’s the basic causes of action itself — failure to promote women to partners. That conduct alone could be viewed with appropriate malice.”

So let me fucking get this - if so far no woman has been promoted, then that fact alone is automatic proof that women are "oppressed" and can get 16 mio. $ just for having a pussy?

Frankly that shit is reason enough to NEVER HIRE women for any meaningful position in the US. If I had a company I would never ever hire women for anything that has a corporate promotion structure, because if I hardly ever promote women, then they can automatically sue me for OPPRESSION.

Coupled with any possibility to charge for sexual harassment anyone should wonder why he hires women at all at meaningful positions.

Post: #31

(03-19-2015 03:08 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 12:31 AM)MidJack Wrote:  Yesterday, the judge Harold Kahn expressed skepticism to Pao's legal team that adequate evidence exists for punitive damages. He can decide in favor of defense's motion and not instruct the jury to decide on the matter.

Quote:Pao’s lawyer Alan Exelrod replied, “Despicable conduct runs through this case. For example, there’s the basic causes of action itself — failure to promote women to partners. That conduct alone could be viewed with appropriate malice.”

So let me fucking get this - if so far no woman has been promoted, then that fact alone is automatic proof that women are "oppressed" and can get 16 mio. $ just for having a pussy?

Frankly that shit is reason enough to NEVER HIRE women for any meaningful position in the US. If I had a company I would never ever hire women for anything that has a corporate promotion structure, because if I hardly ever promote women, then they can automatically sue me for OPPRESSION.

Coupled with any possibility to charge for sexual harassment anyone should wonder why he hires women at all at meaningful positions.

To avoid the class action lawsuit for refusing to hire women.

Post: #32

You have to filter out the snarky overtones, but the Pando coverage has some direct quotes from the trial.

http://pando.com/2015/03/19/hardly-fifty...room-pt-6/

Part of her complaint is that one guy harrassed her by giving her a book on Valentine's Day.

Quote:Pao contends the gift was sexually suggestive and inappropriate, due to Cohen’s sometimes raunchy verse and sketches of naked women.

Fortunately, Komisar took to the stand on Tuesday to clear up any confusion. His wife, his “trusted advisor on these things and a big fan of Leonard Cohen”, had bought the book on Amazon. He hadn’t read it. His reason for giving Pao a Valentine’s gift was Pao’s own fault, really, because she had given him unreciprocated Christmas presents and “she was quick to take slight.”

Quote:Last week, Hermle asked Pao whether she knew that Cohen wrote the song “Hallelujah”, or that the Book of Longing was a “highly acclaimed book of poetry.” Pao said she did not.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #33

(03-21-2015 03:35 AM)Benoit Wrote:  You have to filter out the snarky overtones, but the Pando coverage has some direct quotes from the trial.

http://pando.com/2015/03/19/hardly-fifty...room-pt-6/

Oh - for fuck's sake:

Quote:Gessow’s testimony was short but interesting, him having been aboard Ted Schlein’s jet in 2011 when, Pao has alleged, Schlein, Gessow and Dan Rosensweig of Chegg discussed off-color topics in her discomfited presence.

So discussing even or slightly joking about for example blowjob skills of a partner's wife is probably grounds for sexual harassment. I wonder how anyone promotes those bitches to management positions at all.

Listen to what the "harassing" conversation was about:

Quote:had admitted that Rosensweig had talked about “cute” Eastern European staff at a favored NYC members’ club

Quote:Perry: was there any discussion of the model’s bodies?

Gessow: No.

Perry: What was discussed on the plane?

This makes me fucking furious! What the fuck does it matter when a bunch of men discuss Victoria's Secret's model bodies? Is the US so absolutely lost in feminist shit, that you can only discuss the sexiness of Roseanne?



And here the SJW-BORG with their hive-mind in the comment section:

Quote:"Sure, Gessow may have been taking a cocktail of painkillers at the time for a nerve condition, and may have “tasted” the wine the other men were drinking, but when it comes to what was discussed on the flight, he has crystal-clear recollection." Insinuate much? And here's a litmus test for you: would you have written that if his testimony went the plaintiff's way?

NEVER EVER HIRE WOMEN for any position above a certain level unless you are in a country which won't allow a sexual harassment suit even if your female manager is witnessing an orgy by the partners. What the fuck happened there? I mean the Wolf of Wallstreet company would have been buried in law-suits by the female staff it that shit would be happening right now.



This case should go through venture capitalists like a wild-fire steering clear from female borg like the pest.

Post: #34

(03-19-2015 03:08 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 12:31 AM)MidJack Wrote:  Yesterday, the judge Harold Kahn expressed skepticism to Pao's legal team that adequate evidence exists for punitive damages. He can decide in favor of defense's motion and not instruct the jury to decide on the matter.

Quote:Pao’s lawyer Alan Exelrod replied, “Despicable conduct runs through this case. For example, there’s the basic causes of action itself — failure to promote women to partners. That conduct alone could be viewed with appropriate malice.”

So let me fucking get this - if so far no woman has been promoted, then that fact alone is automatic proof that women are "oppressed" and can get 16 mio. $ just for having a pussy?

Frankly that shit is reason enough to NEVER HIRE women for any meaningful position in the US. If I had a company I would never ever hire women for anything that has a corporate promotion structure, because if I hardly ever promote women, then they can automatically sue me for OPPRESSION.

Coupled with any possibility to charge for sexual harassment anyone should wonder why he hires women at all at meaningful positions.

Lesson learned-Don't hire women if at all possible.

Post: #35

(03-21-2015 04:46 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  And here the SJW-BORG with their hive-mind in the comment section:

Quote:"Sure, Gessow may have been taking a cocktail of painkillers at the time for a nerve condition, and may have “tasted” the wine the other men were drinking, but when it comes to what was discussed on the flight, he has crystal-clear recollection." Insinuate much? And here's a litmus test for you: would you have written that if his testimony went the plaintiff's way?

You've misread this bit.

The commenter is pointing out that the author's insinuation that Gessow was drunk and stoned because his evidence made a mockery of Pao's claims.

Almost all the Pando writers are full SJW. If you read back through the other articles from the courtroom they're all equally snarky towards defence witnesses. One makes fun of a guy for wearing 'uncool glasses'.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #36

She's a married to Buddy Fletcher, a litigious crook and a homosexual. These are despicable people who offer nothing to society but fraud and lawsuits:

Quote:Disgraced former hedge-fund operator Alphonse “Buddy” Fletcher’s broken promises are catching up with him.
A Manhattan judge has ruled that the 49-year-old investor owes his former law firm $2.7 million in unpaid legal bills.
Add that to the more than $140 million in court judgments and tax liens against the Harvard-educated fallen finance whiz and his fund, and you have one of the oddest Wall Street stories in recent memory.

While Fletcher owns three apartments in Manhattan’s exclusive Central Park West Dakota co-op, an $8.85 million self-described castle in Connecticut’s tony Litchfield County, and, with his wife Ellen Pao, a $1.5 million San Francisco home, the ex-hedgie stands accused of cheating Massachusetts and Louisiana cops and firefighters out of more than $100 million and not paying close to $3 million in taxes.

The pension plan of the public employees had invested in Fletcher’s hedge fund, Fletcher International, before that fund crashed and burned in 2012 amid a series of questions concerning the whereabouts of the cash.

The fund’s federal bankruptcy court trustee Richard Davis said the money was funneled out of Fletcher International by Fletcher, whom he accused of “obstructionist legal tactics” to avoid the court’s rulings.

Quote:Personal life[edit]
In 2007, Fletcher married Ellen Pao, then a partner at venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and along with Fletcher, a Crown Fellow at the Aspen Institute.[27][33] Fletcher has a daughter, Matilda Pao Fletcher.[27][34][35]

Prior to his marriage to Pao, Fletcher was in a same-sex relationship with Hobart V. "Bo" Fowlkes, Jr. for more than 10 years.[35][36][37]

Quote:Litigation[edit]
Alphonse Fletcher vs. Kidder Peabody[edit]
In 1991, after working as an equity trader at Kidder Peabody, Fletcher filed a lawsuit in New York state court for employment racial discrimination.[23] The New York Court of Appeals ruled that Fletcher's claim must be arbitrated.[24] In a NYSE arbitration, Fletcher was awarded $1.26 million, and in a subsequent arbitration, the racial discrimination claim was dismissed.[25][15]

Dakota lawsuit[edit]
In February 2011, Fletcher filed a lawsuit against the Board of Directors of The Dakota co-op building in Manhattan, where he had lived since 1992 and owned four apartments.[4] Among other things, he alleged defamation and unlawful discrimination.[26] In March 2010, Fletcher had signed a contract to purchase a fifth apartment at The Dakota, intending to combine it with his current home. The Dakota board said it rejected Fletcher's application based on the financial materials he provided in his application.[27][28]

Post: #37

Not sure what exactly happened between now and like a day ago but this is what came out of the trial

http://www.latimes.com/business/technolo...story.html

Quote:“There is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find, as to Ms. Pao’s claims for gender discrimination and retaliation, that Kleiner Perkins acted with malice, fraud or oppression,” Kahn said in his ruling. “There is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Kleiner Perkins engaged in intentional gender discrimination by failing to promote Ms. Pao and terminating her employment, and that Kleiner Perkins attempted to hide its illegal conduct by offering knowingly false and pretexual explanations for its decisions not to promote Ms. Pao and to terminate her employment.”

Had the judge granted the firm's request to have the punitive damages claim thrown out, the suit could have gone forward with Pao seeking the $16 million for lost wages and bonuses. With the request denied, a Pao victory could lead to a payout greater than $16 million, because awards for punitive damages often far exceed amounts awarded in compensatory damages.

Looks like it's time to leave this country boys. I'm not much of a traveler so I would like some recommendations from you guys.

Post: #38

(03-21-2015 01:58 PM)EuphoricWizard Wrote:  Had the judge granted the firm's request to have the punitive damages claim thrown out, the suit could have gone forward with Pao seeking the $16 million for lost wages and bonuses. With the request denied, a Pao victory could lead to a payout greater than $16 million, because awards for punitive damages often far exceed amounts awarded in compensatory damages.

Looks like it's time to leave this country boys. I'm not much of a traveler so I would like some recommendations from you guys.
[/quote]

The vetting process in the US is now tremendous. Had anyone done the research, then being married to a man who has made millions suing companies in addition to being married to a gay man - all of this coupled with her abrasive personality should have raised multiple red flags.

What is surprising however is that those cases go through. They really want companies to take their business elsewhere.

Post: #39

The sad thing about these incidents is that it doesn't take many people to hear about it and think "fuck this, I'm not employing more people/expanding my company" before it really affects a nation's fiscal health.

The same bollocks happens here, to companies of all sizes and most settle, whether guilty or not, as the costs of a defence greatly outweigh the settlement.

Employees and the nonsense that comes with them is the reason I stick exclusively to franchises, contractors and the self employed.

I will never traditionally employ another person, ever.

Post: #40

(03-21-2015 01:58 PM)EuphoricWizard Wrote:  Not sure what exactly happened between now and like a day ago but this is what came out of the trial

http://www.latimes.com/business/technolo...story.html

Quote:“There is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find, as to Ms. Pao’s claims for gender discrimination and retaliation, that Kleiner Perkins acted with malice, fraud or oppression,” Kahn said in his ruling. “There is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Kleiner Perkins engaged in intentional gender discrimination by failing to promote Ms. Pao and terminating her employment, and that Kleiner Perkins attempted to hide its illegal conduct by offering knowingly false and pretexual explanations for its decisions not to promote Ms. Pao and to terminate her employment.”

Had the judge granted the firm's request to have the punitive damages claim thrown out, the suit could have gone forward with Pao seeking the $16 million for lost wages and bonuses. With the request denied, a Pao victory could lead to a payout greater than $16 million, because awards for punitive damages often far exceed amounts awarded in compensatory damages.

Looks like it's time to leave this country boys. I'm not much of a traveler so I would like some recommendations from you guys.

It might turn out to be a good thing, because it gives her defense team one less thing to base an appeal on if she doesn't get a result that she likes.

Post: #41

(03-21-2015 02:39 PM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  The sad thing about these incidents is that it doesn't take many people to hear about it and think "fuck this, I'm not employing more people/expanding my company" before it really affects a nation's fiscal health.

The same bollocks happens here, to companies of all sizes and most settle, whether guilty or not, as the costs of a defence greatly outweigh the settlement.

Employees and the nonsense that comes with them is the reason I stick exclusively to franchises, contractors and the self employed.

I will never traditionally employ another person, ever.

It's VERY helpful to be redpill/know game if you are hiring women for a startup. You have to look past their bullshit and be extremely wary of women with that bitchy sense of entitlement. They are absolute poison and, as this lawsuit shows, they can invent a lawsuit from absolutely nothing.

On the other hand, a good woman employee can be a gift from god. They can be wonderful. Much cheaper, work hard, do what they are told, and know how to keep customers happy.

How to find the good ones? Simple, just look for the woman employee the way you would look for a good wife. Submissive, smart, heterosexual, and beautiful preferrably (because beautiful women seldom feel any need to sue). Laughs when she's teased and gives it right back. Not a shred of entitlement or bitchyness. No interest whatsoever in competing with men. There are millions of these kinds of good women looking for jobs. You just have to be redpill when judging them.

Post: #42

Closing arguments and rebuttals are expected to conclude tomorrow. Then jury deliberation starts.

The claims are:

Quote:1. Kleiner Perkins discriminated against Pao because of her gender.

2. Kleiner Perkins failed to take all reasonable measures to prevent gender discrimination against Pao.

3. Kleiner Perkins retaliated against Pao’s gender discrimination complaints by not promoting her.

4. Kleiner Perkins retaliated against Pao’s gender discrimination complaints by firing her.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/20...ng-fields/

One image the media has latched onto is of KP employee Ajit Nazre (allegedly) forcing his way into a female employee's hotel room. All the articles I've seen recently, except the Fortune link, fail to mention that he's also the married man Ellen Pao was fucking.

Post: #43

(03-25-2015 10:11 PM)MidJack Wrote:  Closing arguments and rebuttals are expected to conclude tomorrow. Then jury deliberation starts.

The claims are:

Quote:1. Kleiner Perkins discriminated against Pao because of her gender.

2. Kleiner Perkins failed to take all reasonable measures to prevent gender discrimination against Pao.

3. Kleiner Perkins retaliated against Pao’s gender discrimination complaints by not promoting her.

4. Kleiner Perkins retaliated against Pao’s gender discrimination complaints by firing her.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/20...ng-fields/

One image the media has latched onto is of KP employee Ajit Nazre (allegedly) forcing his way into a female employee's hotel room. All the articles I've seen recently, except the Fortune link, fail to mention that he's also the married man Ellen Pao was fucking.

Fucking bitch - lost even some weight and makes extra sympathetic faces for the usual jury-morons:



"Buhuuu - I am not a CEO by now. I want 16 mio. $"

She also wanted to implicate 2 other women, but they refused to take part in the lawsuit.

Also - what kind of intimidation is it to fire someone when a bitch threatens gender discrimination lawsuit? Yeah - of course you fire that person, because that's what happens to idiots who threaten to sue the employer.

Career planning and advancement is not something that can be planned in detail. You may expect a certain degree of success, but nothing is certain unless you have connections. Sometimes careers are derailed or finished by one stupid joke, statement or drunk Christmas party where you insult everyone. I knew managers who were about to be made CEO is 5 years (got the green-light and confirmation by the outgoing CEO) and then ruined it all because of starting to act like a cocky arrogant asshole. Then the CEO changes his mind and he was demoted until he quit a few years ago. In the hard corporate world women will always be weaker, since they cannot deal with the pressure - also there are fewer of them with high IQs, high motivation, high single-mindedness of the mind etc. If we allow those bitches to sue anyone, then any corporate worker who was not promoted as desired can sue so as well. Currently only women and minorities sue exactly because they can - all this despite having already Fortune 500 CEOs who are minorities.

Post: #44

(03-26-2015 02:08 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  In the hard corporate world women will always be weaker, since they cannot deal with the pressure - also there are fewer of them with high IQs, high motivation, high single-mindedness of the mind etc. If we allow those bitches to sue anyone, then any corporate worker who was not promoted as desired can sue so as well. Currently only women and minorities sue exactly because they can - all this despite having already Fortune 500 CEOs who are minorities.

Statistically, short people are far more discriminated against in upper management, but you don't see them filing lawsuits.

Post: #45

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/techno...ision.html

Quote:A jury of six men and six women rejected Ms. Pao’s claims against the firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, in a case that has captivated Silicon Valley and renewed questions about the lack of diversity in the technology industry.

Shortly after the verdict was read, however, the judge sent the jury back to deliberate on one of the claims, where jurors had voted 8 to 4 in Kleiner’s favor. Nine jurors have to agree for there to be a decision on a claim.

Nice to know there's some sanity in the world.

Post: #46

Ellen Pao loses landmark sexual discrimination lawsuit - further details:

Quote:Former technology venture capitalist Ellen Pao has lost a landmark sexual discrimination lawsuit that shone a light on long-complained about ill-treatment of women in Silicon Valley.

After a four-week trial, which gripped the west coast tech scene by revealing the inner workings of such a secretive industry, the jury found that venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers did not discriminate against Pao - now interim CEO of Reddit.

Pao’s lawyer, Alan Exelrod, had argued Kleiner was a “boys’ club” whose ingrained culture discriminated against a talented woman.

However, the jury sided with Kleiner Perkins’ case that Pao was fired because she bad at her job, and was divisive and not a team player. Kleiner Perkins’ lawyer Lynne Hermle said in closing arguments that Pao’s claims were “meritless and frivolous”.

“[She] didn’t want to play for team KP. She wanted to play for Team Ellen,” Hermle said.

The jury of six men and six women found that there was no case to answer on Pao’s main claim that she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender.

However, the jury was split on a claim that Pao was fired in retaliation because of her sexual discrimination complaint. Eight jurors found against Pao on that claim, but four jurors did not. Judge Harold Kahn judge said 8-to-4 was not a sufficient majority and sent the jury away to continue deliberating, according to a liveblog on proceedings on Re/code.

Pao had filed claim for $16m in loss of income damages.

Quote:The Silicon Valley technology cluster has long been accused of behaving as a boys’ club, with women occupying just 11% of executive positions, according to a recent diversity report by law firm Fenwick & West. But no one in the Valley can remember a senior woman ever taking a tech company or venture capital firm to court over sex discrimination.

Pao, 45, had claimed she was passed over for promotion and excluded from important meetings because of her gender after she accused a senior Kleiner Perkins partner of sexual harassment.

She had claimed in the packed San Francisco court house that she and other women were barred from work trips on private jets and ski resorts, and not invited to an important Kleiner Perkins dinner with former US vice-president Al Gore because women would “kill the buzz”.

Kleiner Perkins said Pao was sacked for being a chronic complainer who twisted facts and circumstances in her lawsuit and had a history of conflicts with colleagues.

Hermle showed jurors a slide with comments from Pao’s work reviews that called her “territorial” and “not a good team-mate”.

Post: #47

No reports yet on the verdict on count #4, but with 8-4 it seems very unlikely that it will flip to yes.

Recode.net is naming jurors along with their gender, race, and decisions on the claims.

Post: #48

Sanity prevails for once.

The hamsterbation going on in the articles to preserve the female victim narrative is dizzying

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

Because most women in tech are married to bankrupt homosexuals, and are so socially retarded they can't function in a modern workplace...

Actually, I'll let them have the last part there.

Quote:Despite the verdict that Pao was not discriminated against on the basis of her gender experts said the case highlighted that the business community needs to do more to prove that it is taking allegations such as this seriously. “I think it’s a real wake-up call to the Silicon Valley community in general and the venture capital industry in particular,” Deborah Rhode, a Stanford Law School professor, said.

Occupation: Gender expert
Value: None
Wake-up call content: "DON'T EMPLOY WOMEN!"



Edit: the comments on the Guardian article are almost universally anti-Pao. It warms my heart.

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #49

Was checking twitter reactions and some guy thinks Kleiner Perkins should pay Pao's legal bill to show "they learned something."

People disgust me. Pao should have to pay every penny for this frivolous case.

Post: #50

(03-27-2015 05:25 PM)Benoit Wrote:  Occupation: Gender expert
Value: None
Wake-up call content: "DON'T EMPLOY WOMEN!"



Edit: the comments on the Guardian article are almost universally anti-Pao. It warms my heart.

Exactly! AVOID WOMEN IN ENVIRONMENTS WHERE THEY CAN SUE THE BEJEEZUS OUT OF YOU ON ANY FLIMSY PRETEXT!

Silicon Valley did learn a lesson indeed, but women won't like it. Don't let the fluffy words fool you - this will have repercussions! She sued a company for lack of promotion.