Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial • Hacker News Board

Re: Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial

#61

Post by tptacek » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 3:36 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #35

So KPCB is retaliating with a civil lawsuit, claiming: >“lacked the ability to lead others, build consensus and be a team player, which is crucial to a successful career as a venture capital senior investing partner.” I won't pretend to know who did or said what, but language such as the above, is so broad as to mean nothing. It's typical HR verbiage used when they want to pressure someone to quit, or get them outrig…

That's their claimed reason for (constructively) terminating her, right? It's not the basis of an actual claim against Pao, but a defense of their own actions.

It reads like standard HR speak for an exec termination.

Re: Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial

#62

Post by mc32 » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 4:25 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #61

mc32 wrote: post #35

So KPCB is retaliating with a civil lawsuit, claiming: >“lacked the ability to lead others, build consensus and be a team player, which is crucial to a successful career as a venture capital senior investing partner.” I won't pretend to know who did or said what, but language such as the above, is so broad as to mean nothing. It's typical HR verbiage used when they want to pressure someone to quit, or get them outrig…

That's their claimed reason for (constructively) terminating her, right? It's not the basis of an actual claim against Pao, but a defense of their own actions. It reads like standard HR speak for an exec termination.

Yes, that's correct, it's their defense. I think my claim is that this claim is so broad as to be meaningless. It can retroactively apply to anyone because it's very unspecific. My subtext is that because the language is so broad, it can be used to excuse any firing, with or without cause. And they may cite specifics, but in reality, they could come up with similar specifics and cause for people who have not been fired.

It's somewhat similar to when there are explicit rules one must live or work by, but then there are implicit rules to follow, which allow skirting of the explicit rules. This then allows the implicit rules to be used against a transgressor of choice, since they broke the explicit rules. And that aspect makes it arbitrary.

Re: Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial

#63

Post by tptacek » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #62

tptacek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's their claimed reason for (constructively) terminating her, right? It's not the basis of an actual claim against Pao, but a defense of their own actions. It reads like standard HR speak for an exec termination.

Yes, that's correct, it's their defense. I think my claim is that this claim is so broad as to be meaningless. It can retroactively apply to anyone because it's very unspecific. My subtext is that because the language is so broad, it can be used to excuse any firing, with or without cause. And they may cite specifics, but in reality, they could come up with similar specifics and cause for people who have not been fir…

Reasons for termination usually are that broad. A broad explanation for a constructive termination isn't a strong signal in any direction. A person could be fired for gross incompetence, or for exploiting a conflict of interest, or for a grave personal indiscretion, and if the company was forced to announce that termination, they'd probably still be similarly broad.

Real companies are extremely cautious about publishing reasons for letting people go.

Remember as well the real goalposts: US companies are not required to document cause for terminating employees. The plaintiff in a discrimination suit bears the burden of proving that they were terminated for a legally prohibited reason. The defendant does not bear a burden of proving cause for termination. Employees are routinely terminated without legal cause, and (controversial but I think true) we're all better off for that.

Re: Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial

#64

Post by mc32 » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 6:06 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #63

mc32 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's correct, it's their defense. I think my claim is that this claim is so broad as to be meaningless. It can retroactively apply to anyone because it's very unspecific. My subtext is that because the language is so broad, it can be used to excuse any firing, with or without cause. And they may cite specifics, but in reality, they could come up with similar specifics and cause for people who have not been fir…

Reasons for termination usually are that broad. A broad explanation for a constructive termination isn't a strong signal in any direction. A person could be fired for gross incompetence, or for exploiting a conflict of interest, or for a grave personal indiscretion, and if the company was forced to announce that termination, they'd probably still be similarly broad. Real companies are extremely cautious about publish…

Yes, but rightly or wrongly, the published reasons are broad so as to minimize exposure to lawsuits. Meaning that if they had to be specific, they would have less ability to fire people arbitrarily. They would have to have detailed records on why someone was not up to par, rather than the nebulous, reasons which are in common use these days and pass muster. Many times people are singled out retroactively, ie., in retaliation, or simply not being of same mind with new management or philosophy, irrespective of performance.

Re: Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial

#65

Post by tptacek » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #64

tptacek wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasons for termination usually are that broad. A broad explanation for a constructive termination isn't a strong signal in any direction. A person could be fired for gross incompetence, or for exploiting a conflict of interest, or for a grave personal indiscretion, and if the company was forced to announce that termination, they'd probably still be similarly broad. Real companies are extremely cautious about publish…

Yes, but rightly or wrongly, the published reasons are broad so as to minimize exposure to lawsuits. Meaning that if they had to be specific, they would have less ability to fire people arbitrarily. They would have to have detailed records on why someone was not up to par, rather than the nebulous, reasons which are in common use these days and pass muster. Many times people are singled out retroactively, ie., in ret…

It is explicitly acceptable in the US to fire people for nebulous reasons. We have a "default allow" policy here for firing, which (among other things) makes it much easier to start new companies, by lowering the stakes on hiring people.

We all want the same good thing: the elimination of unfair employment actions. But we should take a long view on how we obtain that good. Considering a more Franco-European policy on employment, it's natural to think employment would be more "fair". But employer policy wouldn't be static given that change; they'd drastically alter both the way they accept new employees and the way they track performance to compensate for it.

All that is just to say once again: you can't read too much out of a vague explanation for why someone was terminated (or, in this case, "managed out").

Re: Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial

#66

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

mahranch wrote: post #3

> An anonymous Reddit employee sent a letter to Kleiner’s legal team, asking them to subpoena Reddit employees “for information regarding conflicts with Ellen Pao.” Wow. I had heard about the case, but didn't know the drama had sprawled over to reddit. All things put aside, including my own biases, if I was reddit's board, I'd get rid of her immediately. It doesn't matter whether if her claims are justified, or even…

[deleted]

Re: Ellen Pao Suit Against Kleiner Perkins Heads to Trial

#67

Post by mc32 » Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 5:45 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #65

mc32 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but rightly or wrongly, the published reasons are broad so as to minimize exposure to lawsuits. Meaning that if they had to be specific, they would have less ability to fire people arbitrarily. They would have to have detailed records on why someone was not up to par, rather than the nebulous, reasons which are in common use these days and pass muster. Many times people are singled out retroactively, ie., in ret…

It is explicitly acceptable in the US to fire people for nebulous reasons. We have a "default allow" policy here for firing, which (among other things) makes it much easier to start new companies, by lowering the stakes on hiring people. We all want the same good thing: the elimination of unfair employment actions. But we should take a long view on how we obtain that good. Considering a more Franco-European policy on…

I understand what's acceptable and normal. I just question why it's not questioned from time to time to see if it merits change.

I'm looking at this from two sides. I've been an employee all my working life, one day I would want to run a business, so I have that in mind too. And I understand that sometimes one might want to fire someone 'just because'. It's just that in principle, 'just because' rubs me wrong.

What I find ironic is that today's HR pretty much says "The reason we fired you is we have no reason" And it's totally acceptable. Do you see how perverse it's become. You can't state a reason for firing someone, because giving a reason exposes you to lawsuits, so, giving no reason, has become a good reason to fire people with.

PS. I've been fired once in my life, while working to put myself thru college. Driver and I were making deliveries, it was late, he decided to skip the last delivery. Upon arrival at the workplace "insubordination". Which was great, got a better part time job after that.