Key Takeaways
- • Stanford Law professor Deborah L. Rhode argues that the Ellen Pao sex discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers shows that gender bias in Silicon Valley venture capital remains largely unaddressed, despite the outcome of the trial remaining unresolved in the essay's framing.
- • The evidence at trial included "micro indignities": female junior partners were asked to take notes and excluded from networking events, and a partner allegedly said women would "kill the buzz" at an intimate dinner at Al Gore's home.
- • Kleiner Perkins said it fired Pao for inadequate performance and noted that 20 percent of its senior partners are women, compared with a venture capital industry average of 6 percent.
- • Rhode argues that Pao's performance reviews reflect a double bind, with her criticized for both passivity and self-promotion while a promoted male partner was described as "arrogant" and "overbearing."
Summary
Ellen Pao's widely publicized sex discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a leading Silicon Valley venture capital firm, is the subject of a commentary by Deborah L. Rhode, Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law and director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford University. Rhode writes that the facts are mixed, but that the case highlights a venture capital culture out of step with contemporary workplaces, where half the talent pool is female, and anti-discrimination law that struggles with largely unconscious and implicit gender bias. The essay was a longer version of a piece that appeared in the National Law Journal on March 17.
According to Rhode, the trial evidence showed a range of "micro indignities," which social psychologists describe as small acts of exclusion and devaluation that cumulatively create an unwelcoming atmosphere. Female junior partners were asked to take notes and were left out of networking events. Pao's testimony said a partner explained that women were excluded from an intimate dinner at Al Gore's home because they would "kill the buzz"; the partner denies making the statement. It is uncontested that a senior partner with whom Pao had an affair propositioned a female colleague, arriving unannounced at her hotel room in a bathrobe and slippers, and that when she complained, another partner told her she should feel "flattered." Pao alleges that she was retaliated against after ending the affair and was excluded from a major deal after returning from parental leave.
Kleiner Perkins contends that it fired Pao for inadequate performance, claiming she lacked the ability to "lead others, build consensus, and be a team player." The firm points to its record, with 20 percent of senior partners being women against an industry average of 6 percent. Rhode argues that the criticisms of Pao reflect a double bind: she was called both "reticent" and "passive" and faulted for speaking up and demanding credit, while a male partner who was promoted was described as "arrogant" and "overbearing." Rhode cites social science research indicating that self-promoting women are viewed as less likeable and that behavior tolerated in men is seen as abrasive in women.
Rhode concludes that the jury must determine how much of the performance problem rests with Pao and how much reflects a team unaccustomed to being led by a woman, and whether the firm should have examined how a "female chip on her shoulder" developed and whether it needed to address it. Publisher context notes that the jury of six men and six women later found that Kleiner Perkins did not discriminate against Pao based on gender and did not retaliate against her, but that finding is outside the scope of this March 2015 essay.
According to Rhode, the trial evidence showed a range of "micro indignities," which social psychologists describe as small acts of exclusion and devaluation that cumulatively create an unwelcoming atmosphere. Female junior partners were asked to take notes and were left out of networking events. Pao's testimony said a partner explained that women were excluded from an intimate dinner at Al Gore's home because they would "kill the buzz"; the partner denies making the statement. It is uncontested that a senior partner with whom Pao had an affair propositioned a female colleague, arriving unannounced at her hotel room in a bathrobe and slippers, and that when she complained, another partner told her she should feel "flattered." Pao alleges that she was retaliated against after ending the affair and was excluded from a major deal after returning from parental leave.
Kleiner Perkins contends that it fired Pao for inadequate performance, claiming she lacked the ability to "lead others, build consensus, and be a team player." The firm points to its record, with 20 percent of senior partners being women against an industry average of 6 percent. Rhode argues that the criticisms of Pao reflect a double bind: she was called both "reticent" and "passive" and faulted for speaking up and demanding credit, while a male partner who was promoted was described as "arrogant" and "overbearing." Rhode cites social science research indicating that self-promoting women are viewed as less likeable and that behavior tolerated in men is seen as abrasive in women.
Rhode concludes that the jury must determine how much of the performance problem rests with Pao and how much reflects a team unaccustomed to being led by a woman, and whether the firm should have examined how a "female chip on her shoulder" developed and whether it needed to address it. Publisher context notes that the jury of six men and six women later found that Kleiner Perkins did not discriminate against Pao based on gender and did not retaliate against her, but that finding is outside the scope of this March 2015 essay.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.