It’s the talk of Silicon Valley and San Francisco — the verdict in the Kleiner Perkins versus Ellen Pao discrimination suit was announced early Friday afternoon. A jury found that Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm, did not discriminate against Pao due to her gender.
Here’s a short explainer of what the case was about, what happened during the proceedings, and why it matters to women in Silicon Valley and beyond.
What the case was about
Ellen Pao, a former partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, sued the venture capital firm over gender discrimination and retaliation that she claimed led to her firing. The New York Times reported that the suit, which was filed in San Francisco Superior Court in 2012, claimed the following: “Kleiner did not promote her [Pao] because of her gender; that it retaliated against her for complaining; that it failed to prevent gender discrimination; and that ultimately it fired her in 2012 for complaining.” Pao was seeking $16 million in “lost wages, as well as punitive damages.”
What happened during the trial
The jury, comprised of six men and six women, spent five weeks hearing testimonies from both sides of the case. Notable testimonies included that of Trae Vassallo, another ex-partner at the firm, who gave her own accounts of sexism and harassment during her tenure at KPCB; John Doerr, a senior partner at the firm, who testified both to Pao’s talents and her weaknesses; Mary Meeker, head of the Digital Growth Fund at the firm, who testified that KPCB had no problems in regards to gender; and, of course, Pao’s own testimony, which included revelations of an affair with a married partner, being subjected to conversations about porn with male partners at the firm, being left out of a work ski trip, and other instances of discrimination. Others also testified.
What was asked of the jury:
After closing arguments, the jury was asked to reach a verdict in response to the following questions:
1). “Was Ms. Pao’s gender a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ not promoting Ms. Pao to senior partner?
2). Was Ms. Pao’s gender a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ decision to terminate her employment?
3). Did Kleiner Perkins fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination against Ms. Pao?
4). Were Ms. Pao’s conversations in December 2011 and/or her January 4, 2012, memorandum and/or her filing this lawsuit a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ decision to terminate Ms. Pao’s employment?”
The verdict
The jury initially found that the firm did not discriminate against Pao in three of the four claims. The jury then reconvened for almost two hours over a miscount in the fourth claim (they reached a count of 8–4, when it needed to be 9–3). The jury reached their final verdict late Friday afternoon, after a juror switched his vote. Pao lost on all counts.
Why it matters
In an industry that consistently struggles with gender and diversity issues, this case demonstrates that women (and anyone who feels discriminated against in Silicon Valley) are going to speak out and file lawsuits. In recent weeks, both Facebook and Twitter were hit with race and sex discrimination suits. And most importantly, the trial highlighted the sexism that women confront in the industry, as well as the harassment they regularly endure. Furthermore, the case will likely encourage other women to speak up and share their experiences, even while understanding that it won’t be easy and the verdict may not be in their favor.
Social media has not kept mum on the situation either. With many expressing disbelief and amazement at the verdict, a hashtag, #ThankYouEllenPao, has gone viral.
If nothing else, this case has revealed even more dramatically the discrimination and gender imbalance that many say run rampant through the tech sector. People will speak up — and loudly at that.
Top photo courtesy of Thinkstock.
Got a tip for The Bold Italic? Email tips@thebolditalic.com.
