Kleiner Perkins answers sex-discrimination lawsuit Around Town, posted by Editor, Palo Alto Online, on Jun 14, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Claiming a female employee has "twisted facts and events in an attempt to create legal claims where none exist," Kleiner Perkins filed a detailed response to a sex-discrimination lawsuit Wednesday, June 13.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, June 14, 2012, 3:41 PM
Posted by Who-Cares?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 14, 2012 at 5:20 pm
Who cares? This is about a lot of sleazy inter-office politics in a private company whose doors are closed to the public, about people willing to commit adultery and possibly lie about it, who are all very wealthy because they have convinced a lot of other wealthy people to let them play with their money!
So .. who cares? The public should not have to listen to a bunch of he-said/she-said .. which will all be resolved behind closed doors.
Posted by gethin, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2012 at 2:02 pm
Although I am usually fast to believe that in these cases typically the women are discriminated against and suffer some form of sexual abuse, in this case, based on public statements the reality seems to be the exact opposite. Her lawsuit smells of being very suspicious.
Posted by Neighbor, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2012 at 5:58 pm
I can't believe how with all this pouch education she didn't leave the company if there is no room to grow and planing to stay after all the mess. What is this brief relationship prior to the case? Fishy to me too.
Posted by deldos, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Sharon, I'm afraid I don't get your "Fireman" reference.
But yes I agree svatoid is self-destructing, and it has been a long time coming.
There are so many things that need to be said about this case but cannot be said because of the potentially damaging consequences that far outweigh the benefit of getting things off one's chest. At least you are bold enough to put the truth out there even in the face of silly threats.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Jun 16, 2012 at 1:32 am
Outside Observer - you gots it goin' on today! (Or technically, yesterday). The above post is intriguing & your acerbic, spot-on comment in the Levy thread was great.
It'll be interesting to see what happens w/the KP/Pao case. None of us know the truth - not even Sharon(!) & by the end of it all, whatever is made public won't necessarily be the truth, either.
I have a friend who has experienced sexual harassment recently & she had to be especially adroit in how she handled it, because it could truly screw up her career. This is a highly educated, incredibly intelligent woman who is no wallflower. This has happened in a much-lauded institution in this area & she even works w/her spouse. None of that has kept her safe from the jerk who has harassed her. It must be her fault since he finds her attractive & he has a drinking problem.
Posted by Smith, a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Jun 16, 2012 at 2:13 am
I have been with my company for twelve, TWELVE, 12 years and I and many others in my class are still junior. We suffer not from discrimination but from bad timing and the economy. No one is forcing us to stay or have sex.
Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto, on Jun 16, 2012 at 12:49 pm
svatoid- I'll help bail you out of jail ;-)Maybe in the interim, you can share a cell w/Fireman.
Can't you hear the call from The Weekly to PAPD? "Yes, we have an online user posting under several names. We know because we've tracked him. What? Oh, no, he's not not doing anything illegal, he hasn't threatened anyone, but we want him arrested because Sharon of Midtown wants it to happen."
Poof! Up in smoke on this Spare the Air day Sharon's theory is shown to be insane.
Jamie Leigh Jones not only lost her case in Federal Court but also has to pay very significant costs to the defendant--her employer.
Sending a very clear message that
If you sign a contract that binds you to arbitration and you try to break that contract you will lose
as will the lawyers hoping to get 30-40% of the money from the plaintiff.
In the jamie leigh jones case her lawyer went out of business
The trial lawyers hate when that happens--with good reason.
In California we have robust very support for arbitration contracts in employment law and a huge amount of case law supporting that position that if you make a contract for arbitration then that will be held up at the both State and Federal level.
Pao will lose her attempt to breach her contract- IMHO
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2012 at 8:07 am
Sharon seems to suggest that in this case the woman has made the whole story up--otherwise why mention a totally unrelated case unless that was the point that Sharon was trying to make. We would love to see Sharon's proof for this. Of course we are also still waiting for Sharon to provide evidence for her "tracking and monitoring" claim made earlier.
Naturally, we do not expect an answer from Sharon--when confronted to provide proof for her factoids, exaggerations, untruths and plain speculation, she scurries and hides and the re-emerges with more innuendo.
Posted by pr battle?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2012 at 11:12 pm
"The NYT,WSJ and the financial press are not sympathetic to Pao's allegations. Kleiner Perkins has won the PR battle so far."
not sure this speaks to the case itself, and the pr battle may be won for the wsj and net audience. on google search, it will probably appear at the top of the items for this company, and instead of thinking silicon chips, the image is more silicon implants...
Posted by svatoid, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 20, 2012 at 5:56 am
"Thank you for sharing
Get some help-- it is available"
Thanks, Sharon, your advice and most of your predictions can be ignored.
"Interesting that Pao is still on staff-one would think she would move
Why doesn't she?"
Why don't you contact her and ask. That would be the best way to answer your speculative questions.
Deldos, myself and others are eagerly awaiting you to provide evidence for her "tracking and monitoring" claim made earlier. Naturally, we do not expect an answer from Sharon--when confronted to provide proof for her factoids, exaggerations, untruths and plain speculation, she scurries and hides and the re-emerges with more innuendo.