SAN FRANCISCO—A jury decided Friday that venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins was not liable for claims of gender discrimination and retaliation by former employee, Ellen Pao.
Pao filed her lawsuit in 2012, claiming that Silicon Valley-based Kleiner Perkins didn’t promote her and kept her off the boards of portfolio companies because she is a woman. She also claimed that when she began complaining about sexual harassment that she received at the hands of some of her coworkers, Kleiner Perkins management retaliated against her, eventually firing her after she filed her gender discrimination lawsuit.
Pao was seeking $16 million in compensatory damages. She told reporters immediately after the verdict that the trial was worth it "if I help level the playing field."
"I have told my story and thousands of people have heard it," she said.
After a five-week trial, the six-man, six-woman jury deliberated about two days before reaching its verdict in a case that highlighted Silicon Valley's male-dominated tech and investment culture.
The jury was asked a series of questions regarding four claims that Pao made in her complaint. Nine out of twelve jurors must agree in order to reach a final decision. In the first, jurors were asked if they believed that gender was a substantial motivating factor in not promoting Pao to senior partner. Ten jurors out of twelve agreed that it was not.
In the second question, jurors were asked if Kleiner retaliated against Pao by not promoting her after she started complaining about gender discrimination at the firm. Ten out of twelve jurors agreed that was not the case as well. Jurors who agreed that Pao did not experience discrimination or retaliation from Kleiner were instructed to disregard questions about her third claim, which asked whether Kleiner took all reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination in the workplace. The two jurors who decided that Kleiner did retaliate against Pao also said that Kleiner did not take reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination.
But only eight of the 12 jurors initially agreed that Kleiner did not retaliate by firing her after she started complaining about gender discrimination and after she filed her lawsuit. The jury forewoman and the bailiff had miscounted the votes. About 90 minutes later, however, the jury returned, clearing the venture capital firm of all allegations.
Juror Marshalette Ramsey, 41, a Bay Area Rapid Transit manager, took Pao's side.
"When promotions were made, the women were not promoted," she said after the verdict.
She said she was "going home emotional" and that jurors "did the best that we could."
"We didn't look at it in light of the greater good or the industry," Ramsey added.
Juror Steve Sammut, a 62-year-old man who described himself as a "manufacturer's representative," sided against Pao. He said her "performance," not gender, was reason for her being terminated.
"For me it had to do with what I was seeing in terms of the performance reviews," he said.
Kleiner Perkins said in a statement that the jury's verdict "affirms that Ellen Pao's claims have no legal merit."
The jury considered the testimony of a Kleiner senior and managing partners, including the well-known venture capitalist John Doerr, who had been Pao's boss and mentor, and Randy Komisar, who allegedly gave Pao a book of erotic poetry on Valentine's Day (which he testified he asked his wife to buy because he heard about it on NPR).
Jurors also heard from Trae Vassallo, one of Pao's few female colleagues, to testify that she had been harassed by another male colleague at Kleiner, and Ted Schlein, the managing partner who said he didn't want Pao in the company's app and mobile investments group. He said Pao was no longer welcome at Kleiner Perkins after she filed her gender discrimination lawsuit.
While they were deliberating, jurors were not allowed to see transcripts of the testimony, but they were allowed to request that the court reporter read portions of the transcripts back to them. In particular, the jury asked for a read back of Schlein's testimony in which he said that Pao just didn't have the "genetic make up" of an investor. Schlein later clarified that the comment was a metaphor, not based on some sort of scientific belief. The jury also asked for a read back of testimony from senior partner Matt Murphy, who put Pao on a 60-day performance plan in 2012 following a largely negative performance review. Pao's lawyers argued that the negative performance review only materialized after Pao started complaining of discrimination more vocally.
reader comments
240