Insight Partners is being sued by its former vice president Kate Lowry, who claims she experienced discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and pay inequity at the venture firm. The complaint details a culture of extreme availability and marginalization from substantive work that led to her termination following complaints lodged through counsel.
Lowry, who started at the company in 2022 after stints at Meta, McKinsey & Company, and an early-stage startup, alleges she was shuffled to a separate manager upon her arrival and faced behavior that she says was demeaning and abusive. None of the allegations have been tested in court.
What the lawsuit alleges about culture and treatment
Her new manager told her to be constantly available — even during paid time off and holidays, including when she was flying cross-country, the filing says. Those expectations, the suit argues, were accompanied by constant warnings and threats, leading to an “unyielding atmosphere of fear” when it came to making a misstep.
The complaint lists alleged verbal harassment, such as being told she should “shut up and take notes,” and that she should “blindly” obey. Lowry says she was assigned to taking notes and administrative tasks, while less-experienced male colleagues were supported in leading calls and participating in high-stakes discussions.
Lowry also claims that her supervisor spoke of a hazing period she would have to complete — which he said “would be longer and more intense for you (female) than it will be for the males” — as a rite of passage.
The filing contends that this system systematically barred her from core investing work and visibility with senior partners.
Health leave and pay dispute at the venture firm
Conditions on the job became terrible, Lowry says, and she got sick enough to go on a doctor-ordered medical leave from February through July 2023. When she came back, she was assigned to a different team and informed, according to the complaint, that if the new team did not want her, she could be fired.
Lowry took another medical leave after suffering a concussion in September 2023, and returned near the end of 2024. She claims the hostile treatment continued under another manager, and that her 2024 compensation was about 30% below market benchmarks that are used across the industry for similar roles.
Lowry says she was informed as of April 2025 that her pay would decrease. In May 2025, her lawyers sent a letter to the firm about their allegations. One week later, she was laid off, the lawsuit says, which she maintains was in retaliation for protected complaints.
Legal context and possible claims under employment law
Claims of gender-based disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation could be made under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, federal and state equal pay statutes, or disability or medical leave protections in the event health-related leave is invoked, employment lawyers say. How much the importance placed in the complaint on medical leave and the resulting adverse actions might figure into a retaliation theory is unclear.
Pay equity lawsuits often turn on legitimate comparators and reliable market data. For venture capital firms, sources such as Radford, Option Impact, and Pave are used for industry benchmarks to help determine salaries and bonuses. If proved against comparable equivalents, a disparity of 30% can be significant in equal pay claims.
If the case goes forward, crucial evidence might include performance reviews, notes from compensation committee meetings, Slack or email messages about availability and assignments, and records of who was given live deal exposure versus administrative tasks. Injunctive relief may involve reinstatement and hiring as well. The resolution of most disputes occurs before trial, especially in industries where discovery could reveal internal culture and decision-making.
Industry backdrop for gender dynamics in venture capital
Gender dynamics in venture capital are under scrutiny. The most recent Venture Capital Human Capital Survey by NVCA and Deloitte has chronicled a slow but steady increase, with stubborn gaps in senior investing roles for women. Women-founded startups continue to receive just 2% or so of venture dollars, providing more evidence that something is rotten in the state of tech’s systems across the ecosystem.
The suit is a reprise of high-profile cases that sparked conversations about power and accountability in venture, most notably Ellen Pao’s 2012 case against Kleiner Perkins. Outcomes vary, but historically these filings have led LPs and portfolio founders to ask more difficult questions about firm culture, sponsorship of up-and-coming talent, and ways in which performance is judged.
What to watch as the case progresses and policies shift
The first stages will probably be over motions, then discovery — its scope — and whether or not parties go to mediation. Observers will be closely monitoring any shifts in internal policy or updates from third-party reviews, as well as anything the firm says publicly as the case progresses.
For venture firms, the larger lesson here is action-oriented: set expectations around availability, invest in widespread deal work and credit, benchmark pay rigorously, and create reporting channels that protect — not instill fear in — employees who voice concerns. Whatever the legal result, the case is a reminder of how culture, process transparency, and compensation transparency can drive careers — and reputations — in an industry that’s all about trust.
