Ellen Pao must pay Kleiner $276k in legal costs

[Veldrick]

Source: USA Today

SAN FRANCISCO—Ellen Pao will have to pay $275,966 in costs for her failed discrimination and retaliation case against her former employer, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, or about a quarter of what the company had asked for.

On Wednesday, Judge Harold Kahn issued a tentative ruling on the issue of costs incurred by Kleiner.

Pao lost her case charging gender discrimination and retaliation against Kleiner on March 27.

As was its legal right, on April 23, Kleiner asked that Pao repay $972,814 in costs for expert fees, depositions, transcription and travel for expert witnesses it had incurred during the trial.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/06/17/kleiner-perkins-ellen-pao-award/28888471/

[Sanity Claws]

1. "As its legal right"

I take issue with this characterization.

If the defendant is the prevailing party, it can submit a cost bill but include only costs needed to defend the action. That it was cut back to about 30% of the original number shows me that it had a lot of padding.
I also take issue with whether the amount allowed was even really necessary.

This case will have chilling effect on anyone daring to bring a discrimination suit.
The deck is already stacked against discrimination plaintiffs.

[still_one]

2. That is the problem, the effect it will have on future discriminations suits.

[Veldrick]

5. It didn't have a chilling effect on Ellen Pao

It's not like she didn't know she would have to pay court fees if she lost.

[tammywammy]

7. They offered to waive court cost if she didn't appeal

She chose to appeal.

[Veldrick]

16. So the court did nothing unprecedented... You admit

where is this new thing this court did, that will supposedly have a chilling effect on future discrimination lawsuits? The accused offered to waive the fee. So?

[Hepburn]

3. My experience wtih Labor Law cases is the reverse

It seems that the courts favor employees over employers. While usually it is the little guy, employee, against the big guy, employer, there are quite a few cases which I have seen where "mom and pop" businesses get screwed over by an employee and the case was filed solely for revenge. While there may be fee and costs awarded, gettingf them out of the average employee -- impossible. Also, I have seen employee attorneys use some very questionable methods -- such as getting cases from cappers. IMO, employment law needs some drastic reforms. Yes, there are laws against cappers, but proving it...almost impossible.

[Sanity Claws]

4. Our experiences do differ

I have never heard the term capper before. What does it mean?

[cosmicone]

11. Employment law is where kangaroo courts prevail in this country

9 times out of 10, the employee wins even mother-of-all-frivolous lawsuits despite merit. Pao lost because she had a jury trial.

Personal injury and employment law are two areas where cappers and ambulance chasers roam.

[Sanity Claws]

14. That is not true

Do you feel better now that you have pulled that out of your ass?

[CreekDog]

18. tell us the 9 cases out of 10 that you're referring to

that sounds like a very enlightening read.

links to the decisions would be awesome too, since all the fun details will make it even more fun to read.

you said 9 out of 10 cases, so let's see them.

[tammywammy]

6. If you go to the link and read the actual ruling

The Judge said the costs weren't unreasonable, but was scaling them down to meet the economic resources of Pao.

[Sanity Claws]

8. That's astounding

The cost bill must have used actual attorney fees, as opposed to statutory fees. I just can't believe that depositions, etc. could come up to almost $1 million.
If that is true, the law must be different in California from my experience in other states. Or the law has changed tremendously since I stopped practicing several years ago.

[tammywammy]

9. The ruling lists all the costs

It's available at the link provided in the OP. $864k was for 5 expert witnesses.

[Sanity Claws]

10. 5 expert witnesses for a single plaintiff?

I could see one for calculating damages, one to rebut alleged emotional distress.
But 5? I'll have to go read it when it I get a chance but that case sounds over-lawyered to me.

Plaintiffs are unable to spend that kind of money to bring the case. In my experience, large employers like to spend plaintiffs into the ground.

[tammywammy]

12. Pao has offered to drop the appeal if they pay her $2.7M in court cost.

The judge also ruled that the offer from KCBP to settle before trial for $1M was made in good faith. Then tentative ruling is only 5 pages and lists out all the cost and witnesses. I strongly encourage you to read it (and in general more about the case) before jumping to more conclusions.

[Sanity Claws]

17. I disagree

I disagree that I jumped to conclusions or that the cost bill is reasonable.
There is no way anyone can convince me that 5 expert witnesses are required to defend against a single plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit.
That is based on about 17 years of experience practicing in the field.
I maintain that this kind of spending is to keep other plaintiffs from filing suit. How many plaintiff law firms can advance that kind of money? How many would want to risk that kind of money? They can't.

[Dustlawyer]

13. The Tort Reform movement pushed by corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

took away a lot of individual rights and instituted loser pay rules to stop lawsuits period! Judges throw out the few frivolous suits that get filed, there was no need before for these measures except to insulate corporations from liability for their wrong doing. U.S. Judges were polled years ago about frivolous suits on their dockets and 98% said they had no problem with them in their court!
In Texas, the Texas Supreme Court rules against individuals vs. corporate defendants 87% of the time! The Plutocrats and corporations run this country!
We need Bernie Sanders more than ever!

[Sanity Claws]

15. You are right

Let's not forget that the Supreme Court has also had its effect on taking away rights. It changed like 30 years of settled law in its Ledbetter ruling a few years ago.
Of course, the current composition of the Supreme Court is a reflection of the supremacy of corporations and their interests.

[KamaAina]

19. Excuse me while I