A jury has decided that a prestigious US venture capital firm did not discriminate or retaliate against a female employee in a case that shined a light on gender imbalance and working conditions for women in Silicon Valley.
The jury in San Francisco reached the verdict in a lawsuit filed by Ellen Pao against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.
The verdict came after a judge ordered the panel to resume deliberations after a discrepancy was found in the initial vote count.
Jurors heard conflicting portraits of Pao during closing arguments. Her lawyers said she was an accomplished junior partner who was passed over for a promotion and fired because the firm used different standards to judge men and women.
"This case should be about what Ms Pao did for Kleiner Perkins," her attorney Alan Exelrod said.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
Kleiner Perkins' attorney, Lynne Hermle, countered that Pao failed as an investor at the company and sued to get a big payout as she was being shown the door.
"Her view of her skills and performance was far different than the views of the Kleiner Perkins partners," Hermle told jurors.
The lawsuit claimed she was fired when she complained about discrimination.
A study introduced as evidence during the trial showed that women are grossly underrepresented as partners in the venture capital sector. Industry consultants say the case has already sparked some technology and venture companies to re-examine their cultures and practices for potential gender bias.
During her testimony, Pao told jurors that her lawsuit was intended in part to create equal opportunities for women in the venture capital sector. Hermle, however, accused Pao of having less altruistic motives.
"The complaints of Ellen Pao were made for only one purpose: a huge payout for team Ellen," Hermle said in her closing argument.
Kleiner Perkins officials also said Pao was a chronic complainer who twisted facts and circumstances in her lawsuit and had a history of conflicts with colleagues that contributed to the decision to let her go.
Jurors were asked to determine whether Kleiner Perkins discriminated against Pao because she is a woman; failed to take reasonable steps to prevent that discrimination; and retaliated against her after she complained about gender bias by failing to promote her and then firing her.
The jury was also tasked with deciding what, if any, money Pao should receive for past and future lost earnings.
