Is it possible to sue an investor for gender discrimination?

+1

If you disagree with someone, say it directly right away or leave it.

Being rejected btw from investors or facing sexism/discrimination isn't a question of gender, men also face sexism, harassment, discrimination (there are plenty of women-only investors/programs/internships..).

An investor doesn't have to invest in you, even he doesn't invest because you are a woman. It's his simple right. Same goes for those women investment/business angel programs.

Also if I am investor, and you want to pitch me and I know that you sued the previous one for not investing, I'd reject the pitch right away.

Just because you were rejected once, you want to sue? Wrong attitude, not the path to success. Other people probably pitch 50 investors before getting any money.

"...men also face sexism, harassment, discrimination (there are plenty of women-only investors/programs/ internships..)."

Dude Seriously?? The top 20+ VCs that have the most resources, success rates, best overall industry contacts/guidance and top exits for their portfolios are pro-male and fund nearly 0.001 female startups to male.

So there are finally a handful of pro-female, smaller investment resources for women as of a few years ago because they ARE a very minority group in this industry and those tiny programs make YOU feel discriminated against?? Wow. You sound like those rich people who are mad because there are tiny government programs/grants for people who bust their ass 80 hr weeks but will likely never reach the comparable resource levels of certain people of society.

Second point: if she formally documents or sues or whatever she decides, it isnt because he didnt invest. Jerks invest too. Its because he was a blatant disrespectful, discriminating jerk toward her strictly for being born a certain way, in a professional setting, which in the US is against the law when it comes to getting an institutional loan, dealing with public facing financial institutions in general or employment pursuits. All publicly traded companies, selling stock on an exchange are all regulated by such rules of professional conduct in order to preserve the stability of the company as an asset on the market. Do you know of any openly racist Fortune 500 company successfully trading?

Professional VCs should be subject to the same standards of basic respect & equality in professional settings if they have the full intention of financially benefitting from portfolio companies seeking future outside rounds of investment &/or going public. Im sure they wont turn away any green money when that female founded company exits. That woman he puts down today, may come up with an intuitive technology tomorrow that could save his life or the life of one of his kids.

Again, facing discrimination is not one gender only. You are the problem if you neglect/deny that fact.

Investors can do with their money whatever they want, even if they only invest in men, its their money and its their right to invest into who they want.

You certainly don't seem to have a problem with women only investors/programs/internships, where's your gender correctness there? You're the sexist person.

You are right that investors like money returns, so probably her idea or pitch was just plain bad.

I'm sure they won't turn away any good/promising idea/company just because of the gender.

OP here- in fact, this VC has not invested in a single woman CEO- ever.

Again, the issue isn't about whether I got funded, it having to deal with sexism and discrimination. If someone was making racial slurs, it would be no different

Are you a lawyer? Is that how you know there is no legal basis? Isn't a place of business bound by anti-discrimination laws?

Your logic doesn't work. It would be like saying that a store can say "whites only"- Black people don't HAVE to shop at that store... they can shop anywhere.

Would you tell someone black that had racists comments made to them at a store to just shop somewhere else?

Show me the relevant precedents that show someone has successfully sued for failing to invest based on protected class law.

The ground between "a whites only" store and suing someone over not making an investment in a nascent venture is a quite large.

OP should focus her efforts on her product and other investors.

It runs a high risk of blacklisting which is why most women don't do it.

Naming and shaming IMO is a terrible idea because it puts everything in the court of public opinion. And anyone can bad mouth someone else- not really a great way to get ahead.

Suing is a way to hold men accountable- and I think that they need a big wake up call. There have to be consequences to their behavior (besides public humiliation) because as a woman, I am tired of paying the price.

All options are bad because the power dynamic is so lopsided.

Do nothing, and the sexist status quo is enforced.

Unfortunately "he said, she said" cases rarely meet the standard of evidence required by the justice system for a conviction. It's also emotionally and financially draining.

When naming and shaming the woman gets to frame the discussion in a favorable publication. Of course both parties will end up looking bad, even when the investors are 100% at fault.

One other option is anonymous naming and shaming. It greatly reduces the professional risk for the woman, and it may give other people the courage to speak out about their encounters with sexist investors too. The investors are likely to be repeat offenders after all.

Anyway, I sympathize with your situation and I hope we're getting close to a cultural tipping point.

+1