March 28--REPORTING FROM SAN FRANCISCO -- A civil-court jury Friday returned a verdict in the high-profile Ellen Pao gender discrimination case, finding that powerful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers did not discriminate against her because of her gender and did not retaliate when she protested her treatment.
"Today's verdict reaffirms that Ellen Pao's claims have no legal merit. We are grateful to the jury for its careful examination of the facts," Kleiner Perkins said in a prepared statement. "There is no question gender diversity in the workplace is an important issue. KPCB remains committed to supporting women in venture capital and technology both inside our firm and within our industry."
Outside the courtroom, Pao, a former junior partner at the firm, said "I'm grateful for my legal team for getting me my day in court. And to everyone around the world, male and female, who reached out to express support in so many different ways and to tell me that my story is their story too and their gratefulness at me for telling this story...If I've helped to level the playing field for women and minorities in venture capital, then the battle was worth it."
The ruling, delivered shortly after 4:30 p.m., capped an unusual afternoon in which the jury of six women and six men thought it had a verdict at 2 p.m., only to find out it had miscalculated the number of votes needed.
The hold-up involved the final of four claims that Pao, a former junior partner, made against the firm: whether it retaliated against her for protesting the alleged gender discrimination by terminating her employment.
The jury at 2 p.m. answered "no" to the question but, when polled individually, did not have the required nine out of 12 votes needed.
After more than two hours of additional deliberations, here's how the final voting broke down:
Juror 1: Voted no on all claims
Juror 2: Voted yes on all claims
Juror 3: Voted no on all claims (This was the juror who switched votes after being the jury was ordered to deliberate further)
Juror 4: Voted no on all claims
Juror 5: Voted yes on all claims
Juror 6: Voted no on all claims
Juror 7: Voted no on all claims
Juror 8: Voted no on all claims
Juror 9: Voted no on all claims
Juror 10: Voted no on all claims
Juror 11: Voted no on first three claims and yes on fourth claim
Juror 12: Voted no on all claims
The voting did not follow gender lines.
Pao filed suit against Kleiner Perkins in 2012 and had been seeking $16 million in compensatory damages and up to $144 million in punitive damages.
The trial in San Francisco Superior Court, which spanned five weeks, drew intense interest from the media and the technology industry by highlighting many of the gender bias issues that women have long complained plague Silicon Valley.
Three jurors stayed behind to answer questions posed by Judge Harold E. Kahn. "This was aguably one of he most difficult decisions I have ever made, without a doubt," said said male juror who sided with Kleiner Perkins and did not offer his name.
Two jurors agreed to talk directly with reporters. "Ellen Pao, if nothing else, has opened our eyes," said Marshalette Ramsey, a 41-year old transit worker from San Francisco who supported all of Pao's claims."We did the best we could with 12 total strangers...We looked at it over and over again and nitpicked to come up with what we thought was the fairest verdict."
Asked whether she felt more sympathy for Pao because she is a black woman, Ramsey said "I fall into a lot of those buckets myself. I wouldn't say I felt sympathy per se. I think the bottom line is having an understanding that this (discrimination) exists... I know this exists."
Although the loss was a setback for Pao, legal experts and tech industry insiders say the issues raised will ripple through the tech industry. Many companies have begun to examine and reform their hiring and promotion practices, and gender discrimination lawsuits were recently filed against Facebook and Twitter.
While the trial raised awareness of the discrimination problem, the setback for Pao could cause employees to think twice before taking a case to court, said Dana Shaw, chief operating officer at ICon Professional Services, a workforce management firm.
"There's a taboo component to bringing that attention to yourself and what that means for rest of your career," Shaw said. "If you're on the edge, historical decisions like this could be a swaying factor to not bring forward a case."
Melinda Briana Epler, chief executive of ChangeCatalyst, a San Francisco organization that supports women entrepreneurs, was also downbeat. "Men in VC firms are breathing a sigh of relief and women in tech are feeling defeated," she said. "A lot of hearts clearly sank after hearing the verdict."
The jury's lean toward finding that Pao's firing was not an act of retaliation is an added damper that she said "without question" will make women hesitate before confronting their bosses about a gender bias.
The jury had been asked to rule on four claims: that Kleiner Perkins discriminated against Pao because of gender; that it retaliated against her by failing to promote her; that it failed to take reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination against her; and that it retaliated against her by terminating her employment.
During the trial, Pao's lawyers exposed salacious details of workplace trysts, all-male outings, porn talk and alleged routine harassment at Kleiner Perkins intended to show a pattern of inappropriate and illegal behavior that fast-tracked men at the expense of more deserving women. The storied and successful firm has made investments in Google, Genentech, Amazon, Uber and Snapchat.
For its part, Kleiner Perkins contended that Pao was an underperforming, greedy, disgruntled former employee who wasn't cut out to be a venture capitalist.
Update
4:00 p.m. Story updated with reactions to jury votes
The original version of this article was published at 2:32 p.m.
