Manhattan’s Most Litigious Couple
Posted on June 12th, 2012 in Uncategorized |
In the New York Post, Naomi Schaefer Riley becomes the first member of the media, other than yours truly, to consider what Ellen Pao’s relationship with Buddy Fletcher might say about her discrimination lawsuit against her employer, the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.
The lawsuit accuses Kleiner senior management of both ignoring her complaints about retaliation and discriminating against its female employees more generally.
Let’s leave aside the fact that three Ivy League degrees (from Princeton in electrical engineering and from Harvard for business and law) aren’t enough to teach a woman not to sleep with a co-worker, let alone one who is making “inappropriate” advances. Why continue working for such a company? Surely, even in the sexist world of finance, there are other firms that would value a woman of Pao’s abilities.
I’m not saying that Pao isn’t telling the truth—just reacting against the knee-jerk enthusiasm with which her claims have been embraced. Kleiner Perkins is scheduled to respond to her complaint on Thursday.
P.S. Pao and Fletcher don’t actually live in Manhattan, by the way, despite the Post’s headline. Which is part of what makes Fletcher’s lawsuit against the Dakota so interesting: He never had any intention of living in the apartment he was trying to buy…
One Response
6/13/2012 8:33 pm
Read KP’s “vigorous” denial that was released today?
The legal team met each of Ellen’s allegations in a very straightforward and convincing manner, one by one. Doubtful that KP’s denial will be met with the same passion as Ellen’s initial filing was. That being said, it would be interesting to see if there is a discernible backlash. Again, doubtful.
Just to pontificate a little bit, on Church street in Harvard Square there is a large mural above or next to the AMC theatre, and it’s a painting of Women and women *only*. Below it is a quote that reads:
” Indication of harm, not proof, is our call to action.”
To me that mantra fully parallels and illustrates the workings behind the initial knee-jerk embracing of Ms. Pao’s claims. Does it make me a cynical misogynist to see a link here? Nope, but there are many who would say so, many who were to rushing to accept Pao’s claims as fact.
Though I may be alone in my thoughts on this, to a certain extent I personally think Pao may have in a cynical way, understood the deeper meaning of the above mantra and was poised to exploit it for profit.
I also feel, in my amateur opinion, that her husband is complex and manipulative/deceptive in character, and that he somehow carefully maneuvered her into this. Nothing about her history prior to Fletcher indicates trouble. Reading about her allegations of succumbing to her co-worker, and then reading about the allegations of harassment lodged against her husband, I can’t help but wonder if some sort of transference is happening.
Whatever any of it means, or doesn’t mean, bravo to you for laying out the facts and allowing them to speak.
Hopefully Fletcher and Pao will be forgotten sooner rather than later, for their own sake.