<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Jury rules against Ellen Pao in gender-bias lawsuit

The Columbian
Published:

SAN FRANCISCO — Ellen Pao lost her three-year battle with one of the world’s most prestigious venture capital firms Friday when a jury found that Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers did not discriminate against her because of her gender.

A jury of 12 found that Kleiner Perkins did not discriminate or retaliate against Pao when firm leaders chose not to promote her and then fired her after a tumultuous seven-year career.

On the third day of deliberation, which followed four weeks of testimony, the jury reached its verdict: That Pao’s gender had not been a substantial factor in Kleiner Perkins’ decisions not to promote her and, ultimately, to fire her.

By siding with Kleiner Perkins, the jury validated the argument the venture firm spent a month building: Pao failed to make it because she was difficult to work with and, despite being given mentorship and “every opportunity to succeed,” she didn’t have the skills to be an investor — and had no interest in following advice to improve, Kleiner attorney Lynne Hermle said.

Nine of the 12 jurors had to agree to reach a verdict. The panel was half men, half women, and included a mix of races and professions — a prison nurse, teacher’s aide, Genentech manager and painter among them.

Pao sued for $16 million in lost wages; because the jury found Kleiner did not harm her, she walks away with nothing. The jury’s verdict also spares Kleiner from paying punitive damages, which could have been close to $150 million.

Pao sued Kleiner Perkins in May 2012, just five months before top male partners at the firm told her to pack up and leave. She made four claims against the firm: Kleiner Perkins discriminated against Pao because of her gender by failing to promote her and eventually firing her; the firm retaliated against her because she complained about discrimination both in conversations and in a memo to partners; the firm failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination against her; and Kleiner Perkins retaliated against her by firing her because she filed the lawsuit while she was still employed.

The trial rocked the small and insular venture capital world, and the larger tech industry it funds, which in the past year has been under intensifying scrutiny for the lack of women in senior management and tech roles. Pao’s case captured the attention of media across the globe, spotlighting Silicon Valley — usually hailed for its forward-thinking innovation and an enviable entrepreneurial spirit — for its entrenched sexism that has resulted in a woeful lack of diversity.

But the verdict suggested that Pao may not become the crusader for gender equality many women in the tech industry hoped for. The defense tried to paint a portrait of Pao as entitled, selfish, uncooperative and disliked by entrepreneurs and fellow venture capitalists.

Pao had alleged in her suit that she had an intimate relationship with colleague Ajit Nazre, who had lied to her about being separated from his wife. After Pao ended the on-and-off relationship — which she originally said she was forced into — he retaliated against her but cutting her out of email discussions and excluding her from meetings, she testified. But Kleiner showed in court dozens of text messages and emails that suggested a loving relationship between Pao and Nazre, and she ultimately intervened to prevent him from being fired after their relationship ended. Nazre was eventually dismissed in 2012 after making sexual advances toward another female partner.

Loading...