She said that Lane [her and Nazre's supervisor] had responded not with action on the HR front, but by telling the story of how he had met his second wife while they were both working at Oracle. He had been married to his first wife at the time. Lane said that he had gone on to have a wonderful life with his former colleague — and that, perhaps, Pao could have that with Nazre.
But, Pao said, Lane added that she and Nazre likely wouldn’t be able to work together. When Lane became involved with his current wife at Oracle, his wife had to quit. Pao said this implied that Lane was suggesting that she would have to leave Kleiner, too.
“Did you tell Mr. Lane that you were interested in having a serious relationship with Mr. Nazre?” Lawless asked.
“Absolutely not,” Pao said.
Lane then suggested that she and Nazre have a one-on-one lunch to try and figure out how to work things out.
(For his part, Lane said in his testimony last week that he only relayed this story to show how he understood how complicated workplace relationships could be.)
This is vivid, credible, and damning, given that the anecdote about Lane's wife is, after his own testimony, an established fact of the case, as is apparently Pao's unwillingness to continue a personal relationship with Nazre, which is documented in emails.
There are galactic-scale legal resources allocated to both sides of this controversy, so who knows where this will go next. But in the annals of "how not to respond to a personnel concern", this has to be right up there.
I feel like there is some background context people are ignoring in replying to your comment. There are studies showing that men project the characteristics of their wives onto their women colleagues.[1] Combine that with the fact that until recently, the expectation was that even women who worked would drop out once they got married because their ambition should be in the home, and their husband's career ambition is more important. That's the background against which a reasonable woman would judge Mr. Lane's story.
If my wife's boss had told her this story, she'd have come home with exactly the impression Ms. Pao did. Indeed, when we were in grad school something very similar happened. She went to a career counselor to talk about job searching, and she remarked that "oh at least your boyfriend (me) has a good job lined up." As someone in a relative position of power, there is little more you can do to make an ambitious woman feel like shit than remind her that society values her husband/boyfriend's ambition much more highly than hers.
Edit/Update: I apologize, I misread the paper.
There are 5 different studies/experiments of varying quality. I'm going to read this paper more closely to look at the the participates of all five.
I left the unedited comments below.
First I like to say the paper's statistics and analysis based on the data they use seem pretty good to me.
But . . .
However I find the paper disappointing personally.
I'm not sure how much information is useful to me since the data they use is survey results from 1996, I don't think that's a good indicator of behavior in 2015, as women have been in the workplace for nearly 20 years since then(1996).
edit:
I'm not sure if I read it right, but here is what that
paper says :
"We relied upon data for the year 1996, a year that contained survey items related to our predictor and criterion variables. Specifically, we included only
heterosexual, married men in our sample because we
were interested in the association between heterosexual marriage structures and men’s attitudes toward working women. Our final sample size consisted of 282 men who were married and employed full time. "
> I don't think that's a good indicator of behavior in 2015, as women have been in the workplace for nearly 20 years since then(1996).
Women had been in the workplace for many decades before then, so while things may have changed since then to some degree, I wouldn't assume that it is the case due to time.
OTOH, as the quote you supply indicates, the study was limited to heterosexual married men, which may be a smaller share of all men in the workplace now, so even if the effect observed has not changed, its workplace significance may have.
Be interesting to do a followup that included people in committed relationships of different legal statuses, different genders, and different orientations and see whether the effect is still visible and how it relates to different axes of variation.
>Women had been in the workplace for many decades before then, so while things may have changed since then to some degree, I wouldn't assume that it is the case due to time.
I agree with you its not just time changing things, but the fact the culture changes with time. While we can debate what parts of the culture changed, its very clear the culture has changed.
20 years is enough for a new generation of men and women to grow up under a different culture. It also may be enough time to allow people to get used to new normal and adjust their behavior.
That is my reasoning for my belief to doubt the validity of that data in a 2015 context and still believing it's probably accurate in a 1996 context.
If we could get actual data from 2015, I'd update my beliefs.
Otherwise I think it's wiser to remain skeptical of that data in a modern context.
Edit/Update:
Sorry for being dumb. I didn't realize they had split the the methods across surveys.
It seems survey 5 supports my thoughts. It really deals with changes in age groups.
The paper says:
"the Wald criterion demonstrated that only age made a significant contribution to predicting if men were in modern marriages, with younger men more likely to marry
working women."
In figure 2, they mention men in modern marriages, had positive reception to women in the workforce.
I think its fair to say the younger generation of men is fine with women in the workplace.
The paper relies on five studies. One with data from 1996, another from 2001, two conducted contemporaneously with the paper, and one longitudinal study using early-1990's UK data.
Also, female labor force participation rate is pretty much the same as it was in 1990.
I think you can only deem testimony 'plausible', but not yet "credible and damning", if the opposing counsel and witnesses haven't addressed it yet. Often, people who are each individually credible-seeming provide contradictory accounts.
Here's Re/code's report on the cross-examination, which seems to identify a number of contradictions in Pao's accounts over time:
Knowing they were in the midst of an on-again off-again relationship, Lane may have had a reasonable assumption that there was still an intention to continue the relationship, without Pao explicitly stating that she was interested in a serious relationship. At this point, the fewer conclusions we all jump to the better.
If someone in a relationship goes to their corporate HR manager for relationship assistance, I don't think your assumption is reasonable at all!
If they were a marriage counselor, or a close friend, sure, but somehow I think nobody willing to salvage a personal relationship is going to bring it to their office's attention for assistance...
Oh, that depends on framing. In some situations employees are asked explicitly to approach HR at the emergence of a relationship in order to prevent conflict of interest.
The 'on and off again' quote was from Pao, from the article:
> Pao said that once Nazre had told her that he and his wife had indeed separated, they started “seeing each other” in an “off-and-on relationship that lasted between five and six months.”
Well, I think asking people to refrain from passing harsh judgments is too much to ask even of the educated and erudite set.
If a Michael Arrington - a major power broker in the Valley , by any measure of the use of the term - was not immune to this rush to judgment in the Jenn Allen case [1], I guess expecting the innocent-until-proven-otherwise rationale to be applied to some small-fry immigrant is too much to ask.
How exactly are you reading this as "damning and credible"? Whether or not Lane was suggesting that she would be the one who would have to leave instead of Nazre hinges on Pao's reading of the situation being correct: "Pao said this implied that Lane was suggesting that she would have to leave Kleiner, too." Apparently Lane did not think so: "Lane said in his testimony last week that he only relayed this story to show how he understood how complicated workplace relationships could be."
Given that Lane and Nazre were already married when commencing relationships with other women whom they met in the workplace, and given that Lane's second wife was the one to relinquish her job, it's not hard to see how Pao would draw a similar inference. Of course, this is on top of the inappropriateness of responding to a HR complaint with rose-tinted anecdotes.
Wouldn't a much more obvious reason that Lane's wife was the one to quit her job at Oracle be that he was a big star at Oracle, likely earning much more than his administrative assistant wife or that they decided to have kids, which causes women to drop out of workplace more often than men? Pao and Nazre were both partners. Instead, you're saying that Lane likely came up with some convoluted rules that the person who was already married will stay at the company, while the other person won't and he was trying to convey them to Pao using his own experiences 20 years ago at a different company as an example?
It's not convoluted at all; it's the simplest structure that comes out of his anecdote. He was asked a question about the appropriateness of personal relationships in the workplace.
He could have addressed that without ever mentioning that his wife had quit working at Oracle; bringing that fact in created an inference, even if not intentional, that one of Pao or Nazre would have to go, or he could have added that the situations were in fact totally different.
If it's so simple, then please explain why it's not arbitrary that the previously married person gets to keep his/her job when a new relationship forms instead of the previously single person? And how is that simpler than my potential explanations (money and women raising kids) which are happening in practice all the time?
Sure, he shouldn't have brought it up, I don't think anybody argues that it was a smart thing to do.
This would be a reasonable question if we lived in a gender-neutral society rather than one that institutionalized discrimination for most of its history. I'm not saying we should assume the worst about what Lane meant, but that we should not be surprised that such a possible construal would weigh heavily on Pao's mind, becuase of the scial context within which it takes place.
On a side note, Lane is ?20 years older than Pao; I'm surprised he hadn't developed the emotional intelligence to ensure that they were both on the same page when she left his office. I mean, when people discuss things like intimate relationships, there's often a lot left unsaid so it's important to solicit feedback on whether your advice is actually responsive to the concerns that the colleague came in the door with.
For whatever reason the implication is that "one of them must quit". It's not clear why that is necessary beside (and this is a big one) it being an HR issue, which implies that people cannot operate within proscribed behavior at a workplace --which to me seems goes against people's right to work, but given this implication (where one of the couple must quit) a rational couple would choose for the one with more earning potential to stay and the one with less earning potential to leave. But that also assumes that the one staying would not have greater earning potential elsewhere.
This glosses over a significant problem. Partners are stratified like professors at univesrity.
The issue about resolving any conflict by the junior-status person taking up with a new employer is not controversial. Its basically common practice and common sense.
So there is no real crux to this other than someone stating the obvious.
The logic is the same if the senior person is of either sex. Once you cross the line of having a marriage you have a legal obligation to that person that can create a conflict of interest. You also have a lack-of-diversity in income that could cause a cascading financial issue if that conflict of interest ever materialized in an adverse way.
So, by resignation and re-employment with anotehr firm you eliminate the conflict and diversify the income base. You do this whist protecting the largest income stream with the lowest risk strategy (doing nothing) and by taking the risk (of change/finding a new job) with the smaller (and by implication less valuable) revenue stream.
Again, has nothing to do with sexism. The roles could easily be reversed and the logic would still be the same.
My point is simply that the title "partner" in no way confers level playing field (as the earlier commenter implied).
Junior partner is like "associate", its almost meaningless if you are relying on that solely for assement long term career prospects (or whatever).
(eg, in a law firm, associate pay varies widely...even with the same title...promotion track of any particular associate is completely non-transpaternt... etc)
By any interpretation, responding to a complaint that she was being retaliated against and a request for clearer HR policies regarding this with a suggestion that she and the man who was retaliating against her could have a good life though they probably wouldn't be able to work together...well that's damning enough. You don't need to suss out whether he was actually suggesting she or he quit for this to be the case.
EXACTLY. The _only_ appropriate response to an employee approaching you with a harassment complaint and asking for HR intervention would be to get a representative (sounds like they didnt have one) and a lawyer involved immediately. Followed by asking if she needs anything to continue working while feeling safe.
What in the world was going through this guy's head?
But she did not complain about harassment at that time. Based on Techcrunch's article, she was complaining about Nazre making her work more difficult by cutting her out of key work discussions and taking her out of e-mail threads.
You're basing your "damning enough" opinion on Pao's statements when questioned by her own attorney. But Lane's testimony was: "I thought that it should be investigated, I thought that it should be responded to, but that it was up to her," which while not great, seems quite less damning. The grandparent also called it "credible," however when Pao was cross-examined about whether she asked if Kleiner maintained a policy that prohibited discrimination or harassment, she said "yes" on the stand and "no" in deposition, making her seem less than credible regarding asking for clearer HR policies in this incident.
The damning part isn't so much what is there as what isn't. The only appropriate response from a manager after being told by an employee about possible sexual harassment is to look into the facts and take action to correct the situation or fire the offender as the facts warrant.
At that time she was complaining about a coworker making her work "more difficult" after their relationship ended. Do you believe this falls under sexual harassment?
Yes, that is pretty much a textbook legal definition of sexual harassment. A relationship was no longer welcome and as a result one individual did things that interfered with the job performance of the other. The fact that they had a prior relationship doesn't excuse the behavior.
Then please point me to the part of this reference that applies. It states that "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when..." Those are not actions about which Pao complained to Lane.
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when
1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Pao discontinued the relationship, then Nazre started cutting her out of work. It's pretty easy to see a case that submitting to the sexual relationship was implicitly a term of her employment in the same role, or that after the relationship was discontinued her working environment became hostile.
Your conflating standard "harrassment" with "sexual harassmenet" they are not at all the same thing.
Sexual harassment requires (by the definition you cite) things of a a sexual nature to be integral to the harassment.
But that's not the same thing as assigning somebody busy work or whatever. That's just being an a$$hat of a colleague.
Per your definition:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment ===when===
-submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment,
-submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individuals, or
-such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 [1980])
Lots of people are jerks at work, and lots of people are jerks to their ex, but neither are per-se sexual harassment under the third bullet point.
But, Pao said, Lane added that she and Nazre likely wouldn’t be able to work together. When Lane became involved with his current wife at Oracle, his wife had to quit. Pao said this implied that Lane was suggesting that she would have to leave Kleiner, too.
“Did you tell Mr. Lane that you were interested in having a serious relationship with Mr. Nazre?” Lawless asked.
“Absolutely not,” Pao said.
Lane then suggested that she and Nazre have a one-on-one lunch to try and figure out how to work things out.
(For his part, Lane said in his testimony last week that he only relayed this story to show how he understood how complicated workplace relationships could be.)
This is vivid, credible, and damning, given that the anecdote about Lane's wife is, after his own testimony, an established fact of the case, as is apparently Pao's unwillingness to continue a personal relationship with Nazre, which is documented in emails.
There are galactic-scale legal resources allocated to both sides of this controversy, so who knows where this will go next. But in the annals of "how not to respond to a personnel concern", this has to be right up there.