I don't think we'll ever know whether she's right or wrong. She could quite possibly be in the wrong, but I increasingly doubt it the more I read. Here's why: her firm acted like a massive dick. First, making employees sign a non-disparagement, arbitration-only agreement (except as a term in a severance negotiation) is vile and should be illegal. You're effectively threatening to fire someone (or rescind an offer) if…
How are employment contracts for 6-figure jobs "under duress"? KPCB isn't obliged to hire anyone. It seems entirely reasonable that they should be able to choose their own terms, and, similarly, if employee candidates don't like those terms, they don't take the job. What you've done here is subtly shifted the frame of the discussion. You make it sound like if she didn't sign the contract, she'd be fired . That's not…
Those non-standard terms (non-disparagement, arbitration only) are almost always presented after the person has gone through the interview process, accepted an offer, and given notice at the previous employer. If the companies put those policies on their websites for the public to find, then it wouldn't be under duress. Companies with onerous employment terms would be known to have them before people spent time on an interview.