In her own situation, Pao said that the firm chose to overlook her for promotions and she believed was done on the basis of her gender. Apart from facing a discrimination in being promoted, Pao further states that she faced a termination form the firm when she raised the issue of being gender discriminated during the promotion exercise. It was further revealed that Kleiner Perkins Caufield &Byers was a firm that contained quite a number of events that involved the underrepresentation of the female gender as well as their encounters with work circumstances in venture capital.
In another situation as she describes it, Ms. Pao sourced an investment for the company in a patent trolls designing corporation which earned the firm an initial public offering. Pao strongly affirmed that her actions were adequately enough to earn her a promotion. Her employer firm, KCPB however did not give her the credit and would further not include her in the board of directors. Additionally, it was revealed that at KCPB, the policies relating the number of investments and seats at the board of directors was unequally applied comparing men and women. This clearly expressed the existence of a feature of gender wage discrimination in the KPCB firm. Pao further complained that the firm did not acknowledge or appreciate her efforts in improving the company. She gave a situation where she proposed a number of potential and beneficial investments which the firm ignored, only for it to adopt them in a later time. Pao therefore based her complain on the argument that the firm dismissed the investments because she was a woman and did not want to acknowledge it to her.
As a result of the activities that she went through at her place of work, Pao resolved to file a lawsuit against her previous employer. Pao’s main reason of filling a law suit was that she believed that it was one powerful way of acquiring a true justice for herself and for the other women who face the same problem at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. In making a choice to sue her employers’ Pao had expectations to have the situation of female workers to become better as she hoped she had enough proof to implicate the firm. Achieving to expose the firm would additionally have to expose the discrimination that was being practiced and be able to end or at least reduce it.
A lawsuit that was worthy 16 million dollars was what resulted from Pao’s decision. She went ahead and filed a case against the firm specifically for gender discrimination in terms of rewards and opportunities that are provided at the firm. She presented her claims which all were to seen as taking a direction towards gender wage discrimination. She further accused Kleiner of not taking any action to prevent her from being discriminated in all the events she described. Pao also had a claim against Kleiner for choosing to fire her when she presented her discrimination complaints and did not consider her at any point. It was however unfortunate that Pao lost the case after the court claimed it couldn’t prove her claims were valid.
According to the US constitution, Pao, would have stood a chance to win the case against her employer. As the constitution states that every person should be granted the undeniable rights among which is the right to live, to liberation and to be happy. The vents at the firm highly make Ms. Pao uncomfortable as she tries to do something for the good of the business and the responsible people ignore her efforts and do not acknowledge them. Facing such a situation not only brings unease but also a feeling of being undermined which is a denial to these constitutional rights. If Pao had enough viability of her claims, she would have emerged constitutionally right.
Regarding the issue of discrimination at work places on any given basis, the US constitution holds its statements in the Paycheck Fairness Act. Ms. Pao seems quite familiar with the constitutional act as portrayed by the claims that she forwards against her boss. By providing a claim of not being awarded the credit for the efforts she makes to source the firm successful investment, it is clear that she is aware of the employee protection that is demanded by the act on Paycheck Fairness. The Paycheck Fairness demands that chances be distributed equally at a work place and this is not the case at KPCB. It is further evident that Ms. Pao is enlightened when she presents this complain as part of her lawsuit against the firm. Making these claims show that Ms. Pao is greatly aware of her rights that the constitutions awards her and that should be respected at the workplace.
Pao understands her right as an employee well and it is seen in the event where she presents a memorandum to the board of directors complaining of the treatment that she considers professionally unfair. Unfair treatment of employees is prohibited in the Fairness Act and Pao uses this protection to hold the courage to make her complain. Further on the issue of discrimination, the Paycheck Fairness prohibits employers from retaliating when their employees forward complains regarding unfair treatment. From her presented claims that she files against the employer, Pao understands this clearly and includes it in her lawsuit because Kleiner retaliated by firing her from her job when she presented the claim.
From her actions, it is clear that Ms. Pao understands her place in the society as an employee. She additionally knows that she has rights as an employee and when they are not honored, she results to a process to earn them back. Although she does not win the case, Ms. Pao portrays a great enthusiasm of understanding her place and knowing what she deserves. She therefore does not let herself be undermined, tortured or mistreated by her superiors at her job. It is due to this understanding that Ms. Pao is able to realize when the firm she works for does not respect her rights as an employee and further understand that the law gives her the power to claim justice. She further understands the rights she owns against her employer and she therefore sues him when he retaliates at her presentation of discrimination claims. It can therefore be concluded that Ms. Pao is informed of her rights according to the constitution.
Michelle_Michy
WageDiscrimination.docx
