Ellen Pao owes Kleiner Perkins $276,000 for lawsuit costs: judge(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Ellen Pao owes Kleiner Perkins $276,000 for lawsuit costs: judge
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/17/us-kleiner-lawsuit-idUSKBN0OX2WY20150617
12 comments
"Pao, who has said she would appeal, has offered to drop her case for $2.7 million, Kleiner Perkins said in a court filing earlier this month."
I get that people will probably disagree, but she just seems to not make very good business decisions. Maybe I'm way off base, but I've read a bunch of well qualified lawyers say that juries are just plain unpredictable, and that no competent lawyer can "guarantee" to win. In that light, even if the $1M settlement wasn't what you're asking for, I would think it paints a better picture of you than losing and having to pay the other side? Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?
This logic would basically forbid any lawsuit, no matter how meritorious. Leaving aside what you think her odds are, this isn't how it works. You have to balance the odds of each outcome, not just the absolute best and worst cases.
Aren't like 95%[0] of all cases settled before they even reach trial? To me it seems like that would indicate this logic isn't entirely flawed.
[0]http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsu...
[0]http://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsu...
The problem with the logic is you can basically plug any number in there and say they should have settled for that number too. If people always just settled becuase they might lose guess how much Big Corps will offer for settlements?
It's easy to say she should have settled in hindsight but if she had won big we'd be saying KP should have offered her more.
It's easy to say she should have settled in hindsight but if she had won big we'd be saying KP should have offered her more.
Anyone care to explain something that I might be missing?
Were that the case she wouldn't offer to drop her appeal for $2.7 million.
Her offering a high or higher number doesn't imply that she was only out for cash. Perhaps that amount was what she considered sufficient to punish KP appropriately.
And for the record: Consider this statement as me playing the race card.
But look: I wasn't on the jury, and I haven't reviewed the court records, and like everyone else here I'm playing armchair quarterback.
And for the record: Consider this statement as me playing the race card.
But look: I wasn't on the jury, and I haven't reviewed the court records, and like everyone else here I'm playing armchair quarterback.
I'm not making any judgements on the case itself; I didn't follow it at all beyond blurbs I heard here on HN and on reddit. However, part of what I heard and just now validated is that $2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran. If the numbers didn't match up exactly I might have a different reaction, but with that settlement amount it seems entirely pragmatic, not principled.
$2.7 million is the exact amount that her husband owes in legal
fees regarding that ponzi scheme he supposedly ran.
At the end of the day, what are we to do? Trust juries as the final arbiter, when we know that they're not infallible? Trust reddit - same, if not more? Has her husband been convicted of running a Ponzi scheme - or is it merely "alleged"? Did literally none of EP's lawyers think, "You know... that number is too obvious. We should fudge it a little."?
Armchair quarterbacks. :)
[deleted]
It has been pointed out that $2.7 Million is exactly the amount that her husband owes in unpaid legal bills: http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...
What do you want to say?
Should everybody just pick the money and run? Without knowing the details of the case and the reasoning of the people, it also could be possible that this woman was not looking for the money, but righteousness.
And no, I am not convinced (without knowing any details), that because the judgement was against her, that this is justness. (I have seen so many unjust judgments in my own country that where based on the fact, that one side had the better lawyers or better experts they hired)
Jurisdiction in human hands can always be an approximation of justness.
Should everybody just pick the money and run? Without knowing the details of the case and the reasoning of the people, it also could be possible that this woman was not looking for the money, but righteousness.
And no, I am not convinced (without knowing any details), that because the judgement was against her, that this is justness. (I have seen so many unjust judgments in my own country that where based on the fact, that one side had the better lawyers or better experts they hired)
Jurisdiction in human hands can always be an approximation of justness.
righteousness == $2.7M ?
That is just the opposite of what I tried to say. I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??
Some things just go beyond figures ...
Some things just go beyond figures ...
I am not a native speaker, so I might have been misunderstood ...??
So by that logic: by virtue of seeking redress you're only out for some cold hard cash. And what easier reason is there to decide to not believe a person's claims?
Yes, it seems to be a little two-faced. You are stupid, if you don't take hard cash, but when you do, you are called crooked.
albertop, and I, are confused by your post, because you are defending her decision to refuse the 1 million with "righteousness" but must have missed the part of the article where it states she counter offered to settle for 2.7 million.
.. or, 2.7m = righteousness
.. or, 2.7m = righteousness
Ok, that was a detail, I simply misunderstood. I thought, that she refused the settlement and wanted to bring it to court.
Still, without knowing the details, it is difficult to judge over a persons motives.
Still, without knowing the details, it is difficult to judge over a persons motives.
[deleted]
Kleiner Perkins offered her $1M not to appeal.
They offered her $1M not to go to trial. I believe they offered to not go after her for legal fees if she agreed to not appeal.
I highly suggest reading this before forming an opinion on the matter. Keep in mind who wrote it as well.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
Very interesting - thanks for sharing. Is there a corresponding brief by the plaintiff? I'd like to see both sides of the story.
Reddit is a "microblogging company"?
Great reporting by the bicycle-repair shop known as Reuters.
Not to mention there's a typo:
> because she is woman.
If you're going to credit an editor at the bottom, they should probably learn to edit something so simple that Word would've picked it up automatically.
> because she is woman.
If you're going to credit an editor at the bottom, they should probably learn to edit something so simple that Word would've picked it up automatically.
[deleted](1)
It's as good as any description.
It's as good as literally "any description"; science forum, racist feedback command center, gay hookup site, blog response community, 10th largest website in the solar system, click-bait blog-spam sales site, blue trombone weekly meetup organization, micro blogging community...
It's actually by definition a link aggregate website.
It's actually by definition a link aggregate website.
The long Vanity Fair article from 2013 on Pao and Fletcher that someone else linked to is actually really interesting, but the comments that included the link were inflammatory and derailed discussion, so I'm guessing many people who would have enjoyed the Vanity Fair article skipped it.
Here's the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
AMC or HBO or Netflix could make a pretty interesting TV show out of this.
Here's the link: http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
AMC or HBO or Netflix could make a pretty interesting TV show out of this.
From the prosecution:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672...
From the defence:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
--- Personal opinion below ----
Not necessarily relevant (I believe it is) but provides some more of a background is her husband (whom she married in 2007) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher.
Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.
From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.
Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.
2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.
She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.
I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672...
From the defence:
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...
--- Personal opinion below ----
Not necessarily relevant (I believe it is) but provides some more of a background is her husband (whom she married in 2007) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher.
Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.
From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.
Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.
2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.
She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.
I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.
It is disgusting that you think it's acceptable to tar someone with the alleged crimes of their spouse.
Trustee report: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/1127fletche...
Token paragraph at the end of page 13:
"Based on the Trustee’s investigation, the answer to the question of why FILB had no meaningful assets at the time of the bankruptcy filing is principally that the Funds were victims of a fraud defined by the extensive use of wildly inflated valuations, the existence of fictitious assets under management (“AUM”) numbers, the improper payment of excessive fees, the misuse of investor money, and efforts wrongly to deny the Louisiana Pension Funds a key benefit of their investment agreement – mandatory redemption of their investment under certain circumstances. The Funds were also victims of an environment where self-interest all too often trumped fiduciary obligations."
Token paragraph at the end of page 13:
"Based on the Trustee’s investigation, the answer to the question of why FILB had no meaningful assets at the time of the bankruptcy filing is principally that the Funds were victims of a fraud defined by the extensive use of wildly inflated valuations, the existence of fictitious assets under management (“AUM”) numbers, the improper payment of excessive fees, the misuse of investor money, and efforts wrongly to deny the Louisiana Pension Funds a key benefit of their investment agreement – mandatory redemption of their investment under certain circumstances. The Funds were also victims of an environment where self-interest all too often trumped fiduciary obligations."
I don't see anything in here about a conviction, and also nothing about Pao being the alleged perpetrator, and thus remain in a state of appalled disgust at what you have written.
But that just shows you don't understant the relevant word(s) and/or you haven't done any homework (like read even the cover page) on the trustee report.
Why would I read that? A trustee report isn't nor can it be a conviction. And it also has nothing to do with Ellen Pao, the person we are discussing.
1) A nexus with a civil fraud case.
2) That is fundamental due dilligence for any fiduciary appointment.
3) A criminal conviction is un-neccessary to prove civil fraud in relation to (1,2).
(Those are legitimate issues/topics of dicsussion).
2) That is fundamental due dilligence for any fiduciary appointment.
3) A criminal conviction is un-neccessary to prove civil fraud in relation to (1,2).
(Those are legitimate issues/topics of dicsussion).
If the cost of work is $229k, and the reward is $276k, then why is there a $47k difference? Making the defendants whole?
There are other expenses besides the ones allocated at $229,000.
Why is there any award at all? I keep hearing that defending a case can bankrupt a person or company that doesn't have deep pockets even if they are successful. Why do these guys get reimbursed?
> Why do these guys [Kleiner Perkins] get reimbursed?
From the Reuters report, it appears that Kleiner made an offer of judgment under section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, [1] which provides in part:
<blockquote>
(c) (1) If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer.
In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant.
</blockquote>
(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added)
"Costs," incidentally, means costs of court such as filing fees, court reporter charges, etc. [2] In this case, by statute (quoted above) the term also include expert witness fees. "Costs" usually does not include attorneys' fees.
[1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&gr...
[2] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=382
From the Reuters report, it appears that Kleiner made an offer of judgment under section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, [1] which provides in part:
<blockquote>
(c) (1) If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant's costs from the time of the offer.
In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant.
</blockquote>
(Emphasis and extra paragraphing added)
"Costs," incidentally, means costs of court such as filing fees, court reporter charges, etc. [2] In this case, by statute (quoted above) the term also include expert witness fees. "Costs" usually does not include attorneys' fees.
[1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&gr...
[2] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=382
I've never heard of a rule like that. Is it common in other states to have a similar 'catch' on making settlement offers?
What's the rational? I could see it as a way to try to prevent SLAPP type suits with quick settlements, but it seems like an awfully sharp double edged sword.
What's the rational? I could see it as a way to try to prevent SLAPP type suits with quick settlements, but it seems like an awfully sharp double edged sword.
It's not a catch on making settlement offers; it's a catch on refusing to accept a settlement offer, and then failing to match or beat the offer at trial. The rationale is, you could have had a better deal if you'd accepted the other side's settlement offer, but you dragged the other side through a trial, so you have to pay their court costs.
This is also seen in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Some states have similar rules but also provide for attorneys' fees. See the annotations at http://www.commondraft.org/#SettlementIncentiveClause (self-cite).
This is also seen in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Some states have similar rules but also provide for attorneys' fees. See the annotations at http://www.commondraft.org/#SettlementIncentiveClause (self-cite).
The rationale is specifically to encourage parties to try to settle out of court before tying up the justice system with a case. As is illustrated here, it makes the cost of saying "no" to a reasonable settlement both the loss of the settlement and the potential payment of your opponent's costs.
They only get reimbursed for some costs. In this case, chiefly witness fees. They probably paid hundreds of thousands in fees to lawyers which are not reimbursed.
The $229k was simply the Jude's guess at the cost. The firm stated it was 865k.
Why does she have to pay the legal fees incurred by the defendants because she tried to extort money? Is that what you're asking? She has to pay because she lost, and they weren't doing anything wrong.
...she tried to extort money? ...she lost, and they weren't
doing anything wrong.
Are you saying that because she lost that implies that she was engaging in extortion?
Correction: when you sue someone and lose, that does not necessarily mean you were extorting them. In fact, it almost necessarily precludes extortion, since extortion is the act of threatening to reveal a damaging secret unless you are conpensated. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the defendants did nothing wrong, as in the example of failed lawsuits against the NSA.
No, that's generally not enough. The U.S. courts generally follow the American Rule, not the English Rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_%28attorney%27s_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_%28attorney%27s_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_%28attorney%27s_f...
One thing is for sure,
Ellen Pao is not liked in Reddit.
There are certainly parts of Reddit where she isn't liked, definitely. But there are parts of Reddit where they don't like anyone who doesn't let them behave like spoiled, obnoxious children, so I wouldn't consider that indicative of anything.
Because of the ban on groups which actively harass others? Or is there another reason?
I think its because of the censoring of stuff which is critical of her and her husband and less about the banning of fat hate subs - See: https://twitter.com/arrington/status/609065906900066304
It especially does not help the fact that her husband was at the helm of a massive scheme that defrauded untold amounts of public workers in regards to their pension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher
http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...
Who you are friends with says alot about you. Who you are married to says much, much more.
It especially does not help the fact that her husband was at the helm of a massive scheme that defrauded untold amounts of public workers in regards to their pension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher
http://nypost.com/2015/02/18/case-builds-against-former-ny-h...
Who you are friends with says alot about you. Who you are married to says much, much more.
Yeah, so, SHE did not censor those posts. Nor did admins. Sub moderators did. I mean, it even says that in the news articles you posted.
And who hates a woman because of something her husband did? That is just gross, medieval thinking.
And who hates a woman because of something her husband did? That is just gross, medieval thinking.
You should probably check your facts on this.
I mean, I just read the news articles that that person posted. If you have evidence to the contrary of these stories, by all means bring it to light.
We could say the same to you?
Let's not forget Ellen Pao's husband is an openly gay male hedge fund manager.
fortune.com/2012/10/25/ellen-pao-buddy-fletcher/
That to me screams that she's a big time financial schemer.
fortune.com/2012/10/25/ellen-pao-buddy-fletcher/
That to me screams that she's a big time financial schemer.
The summary I read basically had a few reasons. First that her lawsuit was rather manipulative, with things like refusing to cooperate with investigators after she reported misconduct. Or her classifying a voluntary relationship as coerced.
Additionally, folks on Reddit seem to believe that she coordinated with the previous CEO to take over the job so she'd have a CEO title going in to the lawsuit. Hence the sudden resignation of Yishan for no apparent reason.
There's other things, like refusing to negotiate salaries "because women do worse", which is really just an anti-employee action.
All this was before the banning of subreddits. I also don't find it credible that people dislike her because she's a woman. I don't know if the bits I read are true (they seem well presented, but many false things are), but if so, that's certainly enough reason regardless of gender.
Additionally, folks on Reddit seem to believe that she coordinated with the previous CEO to take over the job so she'd have a CEO title going in to the lawsuit. Hence the sudden resignation of Yishan for no apparent reason.
There's other things, like refusing to negotiate salaries "because women do worse", which is really just an anti-employee action.
All this was before the banning of subreddits. I also don't find it credible that people dislike her because she's a woman. I don't know if the bits I read are true (they seem well presented, but many false things are), but if so, that's certainly enough reason regardless of gender.
Well, she's a woman, which alone is enough to catch a lot of heat on Reddit.
I'm not sure that's accurate. I rarely see women get "heat" on reddit but once someone identifies as a women they seem to get far more comments, many even sexual. I'd say women get hit on versus catching heat.
Dear lord. Are you telling me you believe unsolicited sexual advances in response to any non-sexual thing one might post is desirable to women? News flash: it ain't. If you think that women aren't treated badly on Reddit, go to /R/shitredditsays. If you have a problem with the politics of that group, you need not read the comments. Just peruse the linked posts. A pattern quickly begins to emerge.
I think he just means that sexual harassment is different from "heat", however you want to define that.
To catch heat means roughly the same thing as to catch flak. In other words, to be complained about/insulted/whatever.
> To catch heat means roughly the same thing as to catch flak
Correct.
> In other words, to be complained about/insulted/whatever.
No, that's not what that means. To catch heat or flak is angering / upsetting others due to your actions then being on the receiving of said anger. It has nothing to do with one sided insults.
Correct.
> In other words, to be complained about/insulted/whatever.
No, that's not what that means. To catch heat or flak is angering / upsetting others due to your actions then being on the receiving of said anger. It has nothing to do with one sided insults.
Not necessarily due to your actions, nor due to wrong actions. Pao is catching heat/flak over removing comments (which there is zero evidence of) or extortion and lying (which suing someone and losing is not) and over banning harassmemt/hate subs (which decision she announces and likely had a hand in, but was a right action).
Maybe it's a cultural thing but I've never seen the phrases "catching heat / catching flak" used when it's not in return of an action (I don't see any official definitions online either but as far as I can tell it's in return of some sort of action). What you're describing just sounds like typical insulting / disparagement.
I don't really know how much evidence is in any of those claims (I thought there was supposedly evidence, not zero, but I really don't care enough to bother looking anyway) as I never really wanted to talk or even fight about anything relating to Pao but I could see that changing the context for catching heat / flak if there is or isn't evidence.
I don't really know how much evidence is in any of those claims (I thought there was supposedly evidence, not zero, but I really don't care enough to bother looking anyway) as I never really wanted to talk or even fight about anything relating to Pao but I could see that changing the context for catching heat / flak if there is or isn't evidence.
> Are you telling me you believe unsolicited sexual advances in response to any non-sexual thing one might post is desirable to women?
Perhaps you didn't read my post clearly but I said nothing of the sort.
> If you think that women aren't treated badly on Reddit, go to /R/shitredditsays
I said the exact opposite; women are hit on pretty heavily in reddit. I don't see that as being treated well; it's obviously unwanted (at least in the vast, vast majority of the time).
I have no idea where you could get the idea that my post said or even implied anything but women being treated poorly on reddit...
Perhaps you didn't read my post clearly but I said nothing of the sort.
> If you think that women aren't treated badly on Reddit, go to /R/shitredditsays
I said the exact opposite; women are hit on pretty heavily in reddit. I don't see that as being treated well; it's obviously unwanted (at least in the vast, vast majority of the time).
I have no idea where you could get the idea that my post said or even implied anything but women being treated poorly on reddit...
You said that women don't catch heat, which to me meant you thought they were treated well. To catch heat (without a cause) is to be mistreated, and it seemed to me as if you were saying this was not the case. My apologies if I misunderstood you.
> You said that women don't catch heat
Please take a look at my original comment as I did not say that. Women catch heat all the time. All I said was, in my experience, I rarely see it when compared to all of the sexual harassment they receive.
> To catch heat (without a cause)
I haven't seen this phrase used without a "cause"; isn't that just an insult? Can you even "catch heat" without doing anything?
Please take a look at my original comment as I did not say that. Women catch heat all the time. All I said was, in my experience, I rarely see it when compared to all of the sexual harassment they receive.
> To catch heat (without a cause)
I haven't seen this phrase used without a "cause"; isn't that just an insult? Can you even "catch heat" without doing anything?
"I rarely see women get 'heat' on Reddit." -- You. I understand now that you were making a comparative statement, but at the time I believed you were making an absolute one.
> "I rarely see women get 'heat' on Reddit." -- You
I'm not sure why you're quoting that; it doesn't support your assertion. Rarely does not mean an absolute don't.
> I understand now that you were making a comparative statement, but at the time I believed you were making an absolute one.
Even if it was absolute I was certainly highlighting a problem with women being sexual harassed on Reddit which you still somehow took as me thinking it's desirable. Worst yet you never corrected your mistake within the editing window so my comment is being downvoted to hell and people probably think I'm supporting the sexual harassment of women.
I'm not sure why you're quoting that; it doesn't support your assertion. Rarely does not mean an absolute don't.
> I understand now that you were making a comparative statement, but at the time I believed you were making an absolute one.
Even if it was absolute I was certainly highlighting a problem with women being sexual harassed on Reddit which you still somehow took as me thinking it's desirable. Worst yet you never corrected your mistake within the editing window so my comment is being downvoted to hell and people probably think I'm supporting the sexual harassment of women.
She was unpopular long before the bans though.
The argument is that the moderation policies are selectively enforced in order to shape the prevailing ideologies expressed on the website.
Reddit's response is that it isn't "safe" and they want to make it that way. If you've been labeled as somebody who makes the site "unsafe" your actions are assumed to be those of an aggressor and an oppressor. If you're somebody trying to make the site "safe" even when you cross the line you're viewed as an oppressed person fighting back.
It's an intentionally uneven playing field and the people it's slanted against aren't happy about it.
Reddit's response is that it isn't "safe" and they want to make it that way. If you've been labeled as somebody who makes the site "unsafe" your actions are assumed to be those of an aggressor and an oppressor. If you're somebody trying to make the site "safe" even when you cross the line you're viewed as an oppressed person fighting back.
It's an intentionally uneven playing field and the people it's slanted against aren't happy about it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Chairwoman Pao owes every penny. She was not discriminated against because she is a woman, she was discriminated against because she is a terrible employee, venture capitalist, and person. She sued Kleiner because she wanted to pay off the debt her scumbag husband owes for fraud.
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
http://www.vanityfair.com/style/scandal/2013/03/buddy-fletch...
Go back to reddit. This comment is over the line. Your other comment in this discussion is even worse.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736628
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9736628
HN has been prominently mentioned as an alternative to Reddit lately in a lot of the Pao-related threads ... I think we're going to be seeing a lot more Reddit behavior here, unfortunately.
Steko(4)
tomlongson(8)
This will surely be flagged just like all the other less than favorable posts about her and her tenure at Reddit.