By Robert Wenzel
A recent lawsuit against Silicon Valley employer Kleiner Perkins has exposed an issue that can be a very difficult subject for companies to deal with-gender discrimination.
A former female employee of Kleiner Perkins, Ellen Pao, sued the venture capital firm claiming gender discrimination. Pao, who was a former partner at the organization, stated that her gender played a role in her termination. Pao also alleged in her lawsuit that she was fired in 2012 for complaining about discrimination. Furthermore, Pao claimed that her gender played a role in the business not promoting her and that Kleiner Perkins retaliated against her for complaining about gender discrimination while failing to do anything to rectify the alleged situation.
A number of Silicon Valley businesses, including technology and venture capital organizations, have often been dominated by male workers. Approximately 6 percent of employees at venture capital firms are female.
The Trial
During the course of the trial, a wide range of evidence was presented by both sides. Some of the evidence that was presented showed that individuals who had character flaws were promoted over Pao, while some information during the trial demonstrated that Pao received performance reviews that continually declined during the course of her 7 year employment at the firm. Ultimately, the jurors were forced to weigh the evidence and determined that Pao was fired based on performance and not gender discrimination.
Reactions
This particular lawsuit has had several ramifications. To begin with, the case has shown the wide gap between male and female employees working for technology and venture capital companies, especially within management positions. In addition, the trial exposed some of the methods that are used against employees in an attempt to prevent an individual from being promoted.
At the same time, Pao’s lawsuit has resulted in similar cases being filed against both Twitter and Facebook. The Twitter case states that the process of promotion is unclear and favors men, while the Facebook complaint states that she was discriminated against and terminated based on her race. (Both of these elements were alleged by Pao in her lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins).
What the case means
There are several things that this case means for employers and workers. First, it is imperative that workers be careful of their actions while at work. Their actions, even if unintentional, could be construed as harassment or discrimination against someone else. If someone suspects that there is a potential issue that could adversely affect an individual, it would benefit all parties if the person began the process of reporting the issue to the organization. This would allow the company to investigate the allegation and rectify any situation before a more severe action took place, such as in the case of the Pao lawsuit.
Similarly, businesses need to have policies in place for workplace promotions and investigation. The best way to deal with these policies is to have the procedures in writing and make them readily available to all company employees. This would allow all workers to have an idea of what is expected of them and what a person needs to do either to gain a promotion within the company or what they need to do if they suspect that there is a problem. Furthermore, having a business document all incidents (whether positive or negative) will create a paper trail that can help the organization down the road. If there are any situations where a former employee claims wrongful termination or a current worker claims that they were denied a promotion, the written notes will help the business avoid any invalid claims or unnecessary litigation costs.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the Pao case could help companies get a better understanding of their obligations and what they should do to avoid a similar lawsuit in the future. Failing to do so could create a difficult situation for all parties involved.