Jurist Steve Sammut, a 62-year-old office supplies representative who voted with the majority against Ellen Pao, reached out to Re/code over the weekend. If we were going to spend so much time covering this trial — Pao’s gender discrimination suit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers — we deserved to know what happened in the jury deliberations, he wrote. We’d never acknowledged each other in the courtroom, but Sammut said he’d grown familiar with Nellie’s orange laptop case and Liz’s orange shoes.

So all three of us met at the Coffee Bar near Potrero Hill, and over a croissant and a wide-ranging conversation, Sammut gave his own version of the decision to deny Pao’s claims of discrimination, his take on the notorious porn-plane discussion and a blow-by-blow account of the final chaotic moment when a jurist changed his mind in front of 200 people gathered to hear the verdict.

While Sammut may have sided with venture capital firm Kleiner on the legal claims, he said was not impressed with how the firm handled things. In particular, he said, he wished there would have been some way for the jury to chastise Kleiner for having lost its employment policies.

“When this is all said and done, I hope Kleiner Perkins gets punished for that,” he said. “I did want to see them punished for that.”

Later, Sammut added of the workplace environment at the company: “It isn’t good. It’s like the wild, wild West.”

After hearing some five weeks of testimony, the 12 jurors went downstairs in the courthouse to the deliberation room last Wednesday. At the start, they decided not to poll each other on where they stood before beginning the discussion, Sammut said, but it became clear most of the 12 jurors would be in favor of Kleiner. More specifically, one man and one woman were extremely pro-Pao, while one man and one woman were on the fence; the rest were pro-Kleiner.

Sammut said he, like many observers, was surprised the juror perspectives were not more in keeping with their respective genders.

The jurors kept their eyes on the question of whether Pao should have been promoted, rather than being distracted by salacious anecdotes, Sammut said.

Sharp Elbows

During the trial, stories about an all-male ski networking trip, a plane ride in which the conversation may have included discussion of strippers, a workplace affair between Pao and a married colleague, and a book of erotic poetry figured prominently and received conflicting testimony.

In deliberations, Sammut said, the jurors barely spent any time on these, focusing instead on performance reviews.

The jurors agreed the inappropriate plane ride was a matter of “he said, she said” — even if some of Kleiner’s witnesses’ testimonies about how they couldn’t recall details on the stand set off Sammut’s “BS meter,” he said. The jurors agreed the 2007 workplace affair was neutralized because, at the time, firm leader John Doerr had tried to fire Ajit Nazre (the male partner who ended up being central to multiple complaints), and Pao had fought him on it. Further, Sammut and others felt the “erotic poetry book,” Leonard Cohen’s “The Book of Longing,” was not so terrible as Pao’s lawyers had made it out to be.

Instead, it really came down to performance reviews, which the jury affixed along the walls of the deliberation room and walked through in careful detail to compare Pao to her male colleagues, Sammut said. Former Kleiner partner Chi-Hua Chien may have been criticized for having “sharp elbows” early on, but Pao’s negative criticism remained consistent year after year.

“For one of the guys, you might have seen that phrase but it changed the next year,” Sammut said. “But for her, it seemed to be her personality, and you really do have to fit into the firm.”

Pao’s tone, he said, felt disrespectful.

“She could be the smartest person in the world — these are people with big, big egos,” he said. “I actually think Doerr and others used a lot of restraint. She definitely had strong opinions about things that didn’t mesh.”

Her notes to bosses were a little too forthright: “If she were my employee, telling me what to do, I would have fired her for that.”

The Flipped Vote

So about that fourth claim — the one that the jury had trouble reaching a verdict on. Many court watchers familiar with employment law thought Pao’s claim that her firing was retaliation for her lawsuit was a strong one. But Sammut explained that the jury felt the 2012 firing was partly justified.

At the time, John Doerr stepped in and stopped the firing. But Doerr, for whom Pao had served as chief of staff for some five years, seemed a little too close to Pao, Sammut said — so his support then seemed suspect. Pao had said she felt like his “surrogate daughter,” a term Doerr had apparently used.

“The ‘surrogate daughter’ — that was not a good term,” Sammut said. “You felt like she had him in her hip pocket.”

When the jurors voted in the deliberation room, they voted anonymously, and they were split 9-3 against the retaliation claim. But when Judge Harold Khan had each juror pronounce his or her own verdict, one juror had changed his mind on the fourth claim. Sammut said he and some of the other jurors next to him turned and looked at each other in disbelief. “We were like, what the …” he said.

The word that stuck with many of the jurors — and which Sammut suspects tripped up the one who changed his mind — was “substantial.” Pao’s gender had to be a substantial motivating factor in her not being promoted, not just a motivating factor; her complaints and lawsuit had to be a substantial motivating factor in her being fired. So they discussed further what needed to be proven for her to win.

The other jurors didn’t want the flipped juror to switch his mind back just for the sake of convenience. So they voted three times to assure themselves that he was firm in his opinion before coming up again to give their final verdict, which Kahn accepted.

Pao just didn’t have enough solid evidence, Sammut said.

“It was her case to win, not theirs to lose.”

Afterward, the jury all went out to the Hayes Valley bar Dobb’s Ferry for drinks.

“We’re gonna get together again in a couple weeks,” Sammut said.

Sammut’s Impressions of Various Players

On Ray Lane, who asked Vassallo and Pao to take notes at the 2011 Kleiner offsite: “Here’s my problem with Ray Lane — he was a fish out of water. Old guy, army training, [former president] of Oracle, this is a guy who gets whatever he wants, and I think he meant well but it didn’t come out well,” Sammut said. “We joked about it in the jury room. A woman volunteered to take notes, and we were like ‘don’t sue me!’”

Stephen Hirschfeld, who conducted an independent investigation into gender issues at Kleiner, but on the stand had equivocated about many things documented in his own notes: “Oh, we paid no attention to him. We looked at him and … I just didn’t know about him,” Sammut said.

Trae Vassallo: Vassallo was an important and credible witness, but it was confusing for the jury when she came out and talked about her explicit sexual harassment at the firm in the very beginning of the trial, before much of the context was out in the open. Sammut said he and the other jurors wished that both Vassallo and Chien had appeared later in the trial so the jury could have asked them questions. “If she had come back we would have gotten a lot more. Everyone in deliberations was like, ‘If she had come back it would have been all over the place.’”

Lynne Hermle: “Hermle put together a much stronger case — if it had been switched, it would have been very different,” Sammut said. “Exelrod was … I was just tired of hearing about the plane ride. If he asked about it one more time I was going to jump out of my chair.” When Hermle stood to start a cross examination, Sammut found himself writing, “Here we go!” at the top of his notes.

Alan Exelrod: In contrast, Sammut felt that Exelrod took too long to get to the point of his argument and wasn’t as quick on his feet when a witness misstepped. Sammut also said he thought Exelrod basically raised a white flag when he had zero questions for the defense’s last witness, Kleiner partner Beth Seidenberg, and wanted to discuss expert witness costs instead (which Pao would have to pay in the event of a loss).

Wen Hsieh, a partner at the firm who was promoted when Pao wasn’t: “Most credible witness.”

Ted Schlein, who was essentially Pao’s boss: “When it was convenient, he didn’t remember a whole lot.”

Matt Murphy, who fired Pao: “Credible. He worked his way up. He knew what it meant to be a junior partner getting to senior partner.”

John Doerr: “Credible, but his connection with her was different than anyone else’s. Even though he threw in the towel, you could tell he had a soft spot for her, just in the way he looked at her and interacted with her when he was on the stand.”

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Defendant Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers emerged victorious today after being battered by a month-long trial, with a jury finding against Ellen Pao on every one of her claims of gender discrimination and retaliation.

In a case that has captivated audiences well beyond the tech industry, Pao filed suit in 2012 against the storied Silicon Valley venture capital firm, where she had been a junior partner. Had the jury found in her favor, she could have won as much as $160 million. Through 24 grueling days in a downtown San Francisco courthouse, she exposed stories of all-male company ski trips and sexual harassment of another partner at the firm.

She also brought up smaller slights: Double standards in how aggressive women are allowed to be and how their success in investments translates into promotions.

Kleiner Perkins came back with a brutal, and ultimately successful, attack on her performance and personality, which they said was just not right for “Team KP.”

While Pao’s story may have helped provoke a broader conversation about gender imbalance and bias outside of the courtroom, in court she lost on all counts.

Around 2 pm, nearly two hundred observers — a majority of them women — gathered to listen to the verdict. When it came out, “no” after “no” to each of the four claims, there were a few gasps from the courtroom. And then a hushed silence. After hearing the decisions, the judge asked each juror to speak his or her vote so he could count it again.

When Judge Kahn finished counting, he realized something was awry: The question of whether Pao was retaliated against by Kleiner Perkins (she was fired five months after filing her suit). The vote was eight to four. The jury needed it to be nine to three for a verdict. He said he could not accept the verdict and sent the jury back.

At this point, Kleiner Perkins had all but won, and they knew it. As onlookers left the courtroom to resume waiting in the hallways, members of Kleiner Perkins’ team and supporters of the firm hugged and patted one another on the back. As we sat in the hallways to plug in and await further action, Lynne Hermle, the firm’s attorney, smiled and waved to us through the narrow window slats of the courtroom door. It was a victory for the firm and its billionaire leaders, who had been embroiled in this high-profile suit for three years now.

When the jury again reached a verdict, the juror who’d apparently changed his mind on that last claim had changed it back again.

Was Pao retaliated against? “No,” the court clerk read.

Pao Speaks

Pao, whose mother and sister were nearby, stood up. She hadn’t looked behind her throughout the reading, and she barely looked at the crowd even as she walked to an atrium at the end of the hallway to give a very brief and emotional statement.

“I want to thank my family and friends and everyone, male and female, who has reached out to tell me their stories,” she said. “I have told my story and thousands of people have heard it. My story is their story.”

She continued: “If I’ve helped to level the playing field for women and minorities in venture capital, then the battle was worth it.”

“Now it’s time for me to get back to my career,” she said.

A reporter yelled out from the camera crew scrum: “Ellen, why’d you lose the case?”

Another said: “Is there anything you’d say to Kleiner Perkins?”

Pao declined to comment further.

“We love you, Ellen,” a woman said as Pao walked out of the courtroom.

Hermle Speaks

Kleiner Perkins’ attorney, Lynne Hermle, entered the atrium smiling with her team.

“I’ll be brief,” she said, surveying the room. “I want to say it’s been an extraordinary honor and privilege representing Kleiner Perkins.”

“Trials, like venture capital, are a team sport,” she said, clearly hinting at the theme throughout the trial that Pao was not a team player.

“I’d like to thank the world’s greatest trial team,” she said, turning to her mostly female team, which specializes in helping corporations fight against employees who allege discrimination. “We call ourselves the all-girl trial team plus Joe.”

“It never occurred to me for a second that a careful and attentive jury like this one would find discrimination or retaliation,” she said.

“Thank you all,” she said. “See you in the next trial.”

A reporter asked: “Have you spoken to Mr. Doerr?”

“I have not,” she said, before thanking everyone again and leaving.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Ellen Pao lost her gender discrimination lawsuit against former employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Friday. The closely watched trial has captivated Silicon Valley and served as a referendum on the challenges women have faced in the world of technology and business.

The jury found for Kleiner on all four claims brought by Pao, after some initial confusion when the jurors were first polled. In an unusual gaffe, the jury had either miscounted or misunderstood the procedure and returned a verdict on the fourth claim, regarding Pao’s firing, by a vote of 8-4 in favor of Kleiner. A 9-3 vote is required for a verdict, and Judge Harold Kahn sent the jury back to resolve the issue. They returned after another hour with a complete verdict.

The grueling five-week trial revealed troubling aspects of the Kleiner workplace in particular and the world of venture capital in general. Pao’s side presented a situation where, as an associate of the firm, she was denied participation in potentially lucrative deals because she was a woman. Some meetings, for example, appeared to be exclusively male. Kleiner’s defense centered around Pao’s inconsistent work performance and what they suggested was an opportunistic lawsuit.

From earlier: Since we last liveblogged two days ago, the jury has asked questions that would seem to indicate an interest in Pao’s side of the story: They wanted to hear the transcript of former Kleiner Perkins partner Trae Vassallo’s testimony about being insulted when asked to take notes at a 2011 firm offsite, and any testimony about whether Doerr met with Ellen Pao to address her complaints about gender treatment around that same time. They wanted to hear any testimony about Pao’s 60-day somewhat informal performance plan instituted by Ted Schlein and Matt Murphy. And they wanted to hear the transcript of Schlein’s comments about Pao’s “genetic makeup” being incapable of nuance.

To recap, here’s our full coverage of the trial.

Follow along here:

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

After 24 days of trial and more than two days of deliberation, the jury in Ellen Pao’s gender discrimination and retaliation suit against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is back with a verdict. It will be delivered at 2 pm PT.

The judge has given everyone 45 minutes to gather in court. The three alternate jurors who weren’t in deliberations but did sit through the whole trial asked that they be given time to get back to the courthouse as well — they’re just too curious.

As are we. (Here’s our liveblog.)

The jurors have been in deliberations since 11 am Wednesday. They’ve asked a few questions and wanted three easels, which the lawyers said indicates intense discussion. “They’re a working jury,” Pao lawyer Therese Lawless said. Many of those reading the tea leaves of the courtroom have assumed the verdict would come in before the weekend.

News crews are out front. And both legal teams are staring straight ahead. Tune back in soon for the liveblog of the reading.

Here’s what they’ll be deciding on the byzantine verdict form. All yes or no answers:

Questions about Ms. Pao’s first claim

1. Was Ms. Pao’s gender a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ not promoting Ms. Pao to senior partner?

2. Was Ms. Pao harmed?

If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, then proceed to question 4.

3. Was Kleiner Perkins’ not promoting Ms. Pao to senior partner a substantial factor in causing harm to her?

4. Was Ms. Pao’s gender a substantial motivating reason for her not being promoted to general partner?

If your answer to 4 is yes, then answer question 5. If you answered no, then proceed to question 7.

5. Was Ms. Pao harmed?

If your answer to 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no, then answer question 7.

6. Was not being promoted to general partner a substantial factor in causing harm to Ms. Pao?

7. Was Ms. Pao’s gender a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ decision to terminate her employment?

If your answer to 7 is yes, then answer question 8. If you answered no, proceed to the questions about Ms. Pao’s second claim.

8. Was Ms. Pao harmed?

If your answer to 8 is yes, then answer question 9. If you answered no, proceed to the questions about Ms. Pao’s second claim.

9. Was Kleiner Perkins’ decision to terminate Ms. Pao’s employment a substantial factor in causing harm to her?

Please proceed to questions about Ms. Pao’s second claim.

Questions about Ms. Pao’s second claim

1. Were Ms. Pao’s conversations in December 2011 and/or her January 4, 2012, memorandum a substantial motivating reason for Kleiner Perkins’ not promoting her to senior partner?

If your answer to 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, proceed to question 4.

2. Was Ms. Pao harmed?

If your answer to question 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, then proceed to question 4.

3. Was Kleiner Perkins’ not promoting Ms. Pao to senior partner a substantial factor in causing harm to her?

Proceed to question 4.

4. Were Ms. Pao’s conversations in December 2011 and her January 4, 2012, memorandum a substantial motivating reason for her not being promoted to general partner?

If your answer to 4 is yes, then answer question 5. If you answered no, then proceed to the questions about Ms. Pao’s third claim.

5. Was Ms. Pao harmed?

If your answer to 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no, then proceed to questions about Ms. Pao’s third claim.

6. Was not being promoted to general partner a substantial factor in causing harm to Ms. Pao?

Please proceed to the questions about Ms. Pao’s third claim.

Questions about Ms. Pao’s third claim

You should answer the questions about Ms. Pao’s third claim only if you answered yes to all of the questions 1-3, 4-6 and/or 7-9 about Ms. Pao’s first claim. If you did not answer yes to all of the questions 1-3, 4-6 and/or 7-9 about Ms. Pao’s first claim, proceed to answer the questions about Ms. Pao’s fourth claim.

1. Did Kleiner Perkins fail to take all reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination about Ms. Pao?

If your answer to 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, do not answer any further questions about Ms. Pao’s third claim, and proceed to the questions about Ms. Pao’s fourth claim.

2. Was Ms. Pao harmed?

If your answer to 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, do not answer any further questions about Ms. Pao’s third claim, and proceed to the questions about Ms. Pao’s fourth claim.

3. Was Kleiner Perkins’ failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination against Ms. Pao a substantial factor in causing harm to her?

Please proceed to questions about Ms. Pao’s fourth claim.

Questions about Ms. Pao’s fourth claim

1. 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?

If your answer to 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, do not answer any further questions about Ms. Pao’s fourth claim, and proceed to the questions about whether Kleiner Perkins would have acted the same way even if it had not acted wrongfully toward Ms. Pao.

2. Was Ms. Pao harmed?

If your answer to 2 is yes, then answer question 3. If you answered no, do not answer any further questions about Ms. Pao’s fourth claim, and proceed to the questions about whether Kleiner Perkins would have acted the same way even if it had not acted wrongfully toward Ms. Pao.

3. Was Kleiner Perkins’ decision to terminate Ms. Pao’s employment a substantial factor in causing harm to her?

Please proceed to the questions about whether Kleiner Perkins would have acted the same way even if it had not acted wrongfully toward Ms. Pao.

Questions about whether Kleiner Perkins would have acted the same way even if it had not acted wrongfully toward Ms. Pao

Answer question 1 only if you found that Ms. Pao’s not being promoted to senior partner was substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation. If you found that Ms. Pao’s not being promoted to senior partner was not substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation, proceed to instructions after question 2.

1. Was Ms. Pao’s poor performance also a substantial motivating reason for her not being promoted to senior partner?

If your answer to 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, skip question 2 and proceed to the instructions after question 2.

2. Would Kleiner Perkins have failed to promote Ms. Pao to senior partner anyway because of her poor job performance even if it had not also been substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation?

Answer question 3 only if you found that Ms. Pao’s not being promoted to general partner was substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation. If you found that the decision not to promote Ms. Pao to general partner was not substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation, proceed to the instructions after question 4.

3. Was Ms. Pao’s poor performance also a substantial motivating reason for her not being promoted to general partner?

If your answer to question 3 is yes, then answer question 4. If you answered no, skip question 4 and proceed to the instructions after question 4.

4. Would Kleiner Perkins have failed to promote Ms. Pao to general partner anyway because of her poor job performance even if it had not been substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation?

Answer question 5 only if you found that the decision to terminate Ms. Pao’s employment was substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation. If you found the decision to terminate Ms. Pao’s employment was not substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation, proceed to the instructions after question 6.

5. Was Ms. Pao’s poor job performance also a substantial motivating reason for the decision to terminate her employment?

If your answer to question 5 is yes, then answer question 6. If you answered no, skip question 6 and proceed to the instructions after question 6.

6. Would Kleiner Perkins have terminated Ms. Pao’s employment anyway because of Ms. Pao’s poor job performance even if it had not also been substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation?

Proceed to the compensatory damages questions only if you answered no to either question 1 or 2, questions 3 or 4 and/or 5 and 6 in this section. Otherwise, stop here, answer no further questions and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

Compensatory damages question

1. What amount of compensatory damages do you award to Ms. Pao for past and future lost earnings?
a. Past lost earnings $___
b. Future lost earnings $___
Total $___

Please proceed to the punitive damages questions.

Punitive damages questions

1. Did Kleiner Perkins act with malice, oppression, or fraud with respect to any or all of its actions or inactions that you found were substantially motivated by gender discrimination and/or retaliation?

If your answer to question 1 is yes, then answer question 2. If you answered no, stop here, answer no further questions, and have the presiding juror sign and date this form.

2. Was the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud committed by one or more managing members of Kleiner Perkins acting on behalf of Kleiner Perkins?

Signed: ___
Dated: ___

After this verdict form has been signed, please notify the bailiff that you are ready to present your verdict to the courtroom.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

We’ve entered the thrilling now-we-wait portion of the Ellen Pao gender discrimination trial. A few questions keep coming up.

Though we’ve extensively watched both “Scandal” and “Ally McBeal” and spent the better part of 24 days going through metal detectors to enter the San Francisco Civic Center courthouse, neither of us technically has a law degree. (Objection! Liz denies watching these shows, but Nellie overrules that as impossible.)

So we’ve asked real lawyers a lot of questions about this case, and here’s what we can report back in response to some of the repeat questions we’re getting about the trial on Twitter, in email and from our own brains.

Who is expected to win?

While the arc of the broader media narrative has been focusing on the allegations against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and the details Pao has dredged up (billionaires, office affairs, the Playboy mansion, Al Gore), this case has no slam dunk or smoking gun.

Pao is tying together a number of different issues — double standards in performance reviews, a male-dominated history at Kleiner Perkins, incidents where women were excluded or treated differently and upset about it — and an absence of human resources people, policies and training at a very well-established company. She definitely scored some hits.

Meanwhile, Kleiner Perkins partners didn’t always present themselves well on the stand, but they also brought context that helped fill out these incidents in ways that seemed less discriminatory.

Interestingly, John Doerr is the crux here, for both sides. He was clearly Pao’s mentor and helped guide and support her through the organization for many years. He offered to fire the guy Pao had an affair with, Ajit Nazre, because Nazre lied to her — and Pao fought for Nazre to stay. Those are big points for Kleiner Perkins.

But Doerr is also the guy who wrote in an email to his partners during 2011, the crucial year before Pao was fired: “I’m concerned with inequities in our partnership inconsistent among our practices with regard to ‘up and out.’” (He’s talking about how Kleiner Perkins handles promotions and departures for people who don’t get promoted to the highest level.)

Doerr continued, “I don’t know how a junior partner could have a better year than Ellen did, measuring results, profits, increase in value — except for her clash with Randy [Komisar over a portfolio company called RPX they both worked on]. And honestly I think they both behaved badly.” That’s one of the strongest articulations of her case.

Pao’s side is at its best when it ties into the larger narrative of winning for all women, and her lawyer Therese Lawless went out with a bang yesterday.

What does Ellen Pao have to prove?

Pao is suing on four counts, two of discrimination and two of retaliation: 1) Kleiner Perkins discriminated against Pao based on gender, 2) Kleiner Perkins retaliated against her after she complained, 3) Kleiner Perkins failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent that discrimination (she can only win this one if she’s already won No. 1), and 4) Kleiner Perkins retaliated by firing her.

Her strongest and easiest argument, many lawyers tell us, is No. 4: She complained about discrimination and filed a lawsuit, and then was fired. Companies really aren’t supposed to fire people who have already sued them.

But for Pao to win that retaliation claim wouldn’t be a larger statement about gender — just about how Kleiner Perkins botched a particular personnel complaint.

What does this mean for other similar cases?

Even without Pao winning her case, a couple of very similar lawsuits have cropped up just in the past week. A former Facebook product manager sued the company for discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on her gender, using one of the same law firms as Pao, Lawless & Lawless. And a former Twitter software engineer filed a gender discrimination lawsuit over Twitter’s promotion process. Many in the technology industry have noted that both lawsuits were filed by women who are Asian-American, just like Pao.

Is there a legal precedent for this case? Could it set a legal precedent?

Yes, the most relevant Supreme Court case is Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins from 1989, about whether a partnership could withhold promotion from a woman, Ann Hopkins, whose personality didn’t fit in but who was a high performer. It established how courts should balance motivations and evaluate evidence in these kind of cases. Hopkins won.

As for how important this case is, it would have to make it to an appeals court to set any kind of precedent, but perhaps the two issues that stick out, lawyers have told us, are 1) notions about implicit bias and coded language and what that means and how to prove it, and 2) the wonky topic of how to consider carried interest — that is, how Kleiner Perkins shares profits with partners over the 10-year life of its funds. Judge Harold Kahn has said he can’t find any relevant precedents on carried interest.

Does the jury have to be unanimous?

No, the standard in a California civil case is three quarters of the jury, or nine of 12.

Will both sides appeal?

Kleiner Perkins clearly wants to protect its image or it wouldn’t have put itself through this trial, so we’d expect its default would be to appeal. Pao seems happy to have provoked a larger public discussion with her trial, so we would think she’d want to see it through. But the reality is, we don’t know and they probably don’t know until we all see how the jury decides.

Who decides the damages?

The jury decides with the judge’s final approval, but it doesn’t have the full information yet. Some testimony about damages was withheld at the trial until the verdict establishes whether it’s necessary. If the trial keeps going, there will be a more detailed discussion of two forms of stock-based compensation: Kleiner Perkins’ carried interest (which is complicated, as described above) and Reddit stock options (which the company where Pao is now interim CEO very much wants to keep private).

If the jury finds that damages are deserved, we’ll come back for a “phase two” of the trial of a day or two, and hear about those.

How are damages calculated?

Like many people, we’ve been using the estimate from pretrial discussions that Pao is suing for something like $16 million in damages, much of this from lost wages if she had stayed at Kleiner Perkins and been promoted. The precise number hasn’t been brought up in court yet.

Judge Kahn had considered stripping out punitive damages from the trial, because they have a higher standard of proof that he doubted Pao’s side had met, but he ended up leaving them in.

The rule of thumb for punitive damages is that they are up to nine times the regular damages, so in this case, $144 million. Combined with the $16 million in damages, that would give Pao a maximum payout of $160 million.

However, the judge has leeway to reduce the punitive damages when he interprets the verdict into the judgment of the court.

Who pays whose legal fees?

If Pao wins, Kleiner Perkins pays her legal fees. We’re told that holds whether or not she has a mixed or a complete victory. If Kleiner Perkins wins, Pao will be expected to pay the firm’s expert witness costs, but not its legal team’s fees. That would still add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Ellen Pao’s lawyer Therese Lawless today stepped away from the details of the case and gave an impassioned rallying cry for women in Silicon Valley who just want their seat at the table.

The lawsuit — filed by Pao against her former employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, which, she alleged, discriminated and retaliated against her — has captivated Silicon Valley, where many women have felt gender issues reaching a boiling point.

This case has become important because people want it to be important, but there has been a gap between the narrative outside court and the narrative inside the courtroom. Many in the Valley have wanted this lawsuit, which is messy and complicated and singular, to be a simpler rallying point for the cause of women in tech. Today, Lawless gave them that — the Ellen Pao Lean-In Manifesto.

On the 24th and last day in court, Lawless pushed the case into a larger narrative: Here is a woman who wanted a seat at the table and was punished for asking.

“Throughout this trial Kleiner Perkins has tried to blame Ellen Pao to distract you from themselves and their failure to comply with the law,” she said to the jurors. “In the state of California, in this country, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against employees because of their gender. Every individual in this country is allowed to go to work and have equity in the workplace. Every individual is allowed to have the same standards applied to them. That’s what she wanted. That’s why we’re here.”

She said Ellen Pao filed the suit to effect broader cultural change.

“The culture there needed to change. It needed to change. It had negative repercussions for the women who were trying to move up in the organization,” she said. “If you look at the reviews of the gentlemen and see the different subjective descriptions of everyone and how they’re judged — ‘being a lone wolf, acting on their own, having sharp elbows.’ All those negative criticisms, why did I show them?”

Lawless looked around the room for flourish.

“Because they’re human beings, just like she’s a human being, just like we’re all human beings. But for the men, it didn’t hurt them getting promoted. But it hurt her. That’s why I showed them to you,” she said. “Women will be judged in one way and men in another. That’s not how it works in this country.”

The partners at Kleiner Perkins argued that Pao was never cut out for venture capital but instead would be a great “operator,” or manager, at a company.

“What really, really bothers me in this case is that some men think that they can decide what she’s best at, and that’s what’s wrong,” Lawless said. “That is not tolerated anymore. It’s illegal.”

She invoked Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” treatise for gender equality in the workplace.

“When Ellen Pao wanted a seat at the table, Matt Murphy and others thought she was being presumptuous. But it was normal for her to do that,” she said. “How do you think her male colleagues got on the many boards they sat on?”

A company Pao advocated investing in while at Kleiner Perkins was extremely successful and went public, but Pao didn’t receive a promotion. Kleiner Perkins attorney Lynne Hermle had argued that investment success was not the main criteria on which partners were judged — she called that presumption “crazy” — and said the ability to play well on “team KP” was more important.

Said Lawless: “Another statement I found disturbing about the world of venture capital is that realizing profits would be a ‘crazy criteria.’ What is this world about? It’s not about a bunch of people sitting around and singing ‘Kumbaya.’ No, they have a mission. It’s their job to get higher returns for the limited partners who have trusted their money with them — that is Mr. Doerr’s testimony. That’s what matters. Let’s look at what matters — let’s look at the bottom line here.”

As for why Pao filed the suit: “She wanted them to pay because if they were going to run her out and take away her career, a career she wanted to pursue, then they needed to have something to make them think about doing it in the future.”

Hermle said no other women took the stand to complain about discrimination. Lawless said that was because they were afraid.

“Why didn’t more women come up to the stand? The venture capital world is small. Ms. Pao had a hard time getting a job when she was talking to people after her termination,” Lawless said. “People have many different reasons for not taking on powerful organizations — they have rent to pay, they have lives. Just because Ellen Pao is willing to stand up to them and say no doesn’t mean there aren’t many other women who want or wanted to do the same. This is very difficult to do, very difficult.”

The narrative that Kleiner Perkins cast was that Pao was a difficult and ungrateful employee. Hermle and witnesses frequently used the word “entitled” to describe Pao.

“Kleiner Perkins has been acting entitled,” Lawless said. “It’s not taking responsibility for its culture, where men are treated differently than women, where men are promoted over equally qualified women, where men are allowed to behave in certain ways and are rewarded.”

Lawless placed this trial into the history of civil rights: “This type of behavior is no longer acceptable. For many years, women were told you don’t have enough to own property. You don’t have enough to vote. You can go to medical school, but no, you can’t be a surgeon, go take care of the kids. You go to law school, but you practice family law, you can’t be an attorney.’”

And she returned to the idea of a boys’ club: “They have their club, and they decide who can and who can’t be in it. This woman worked so hard for the company, and they were going to determine her destiny? It’s not okay, it’s illegal.”

And, as Hermle did, Lawless appealed to the jury, asking them to use their common sense and adding: “Just remember, you are the conscience of this community, and let Kleiner Perkins and the venture capital firms know that every employee who works hard deserves a fair and equitable workplace.”

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

We’re back for more. Today in court: More closing arguments from defense attorney Lynne Hermle representing Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, followed by a rebuttal from Therese Lawless representing plaintiff Ellen Pao.

Here’s yesterday’s epic liveblog and all our trial coverage of Pao’s gender discrimination and retaliation case to catch you up to where we are now.

Stay tuned for liveblog updates beginning at 9.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

The inside of a double-wide courtroom in San Francisco was sweltering and packed on the first day of closing arguments in Ellen Pao’s historic gender discrimination lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, her former employer.

Parents had taken their children out of school to see it, former Yahoo president Sue Decker among them. Packs of local and national reporters jammed around power strips in the back. Curious onlookers dragged extra plastic chairs into the room, and others perched in crowded rows along shelves and banisters.

Kleiner Perkins, once one of the most famous and powerful venture capital firms, has been dragged through the mud in a month-long courtroom thrashing. While it often seems to be faring well in its arguments, the historic firm’s name is likely forever tarnished, tainted with images like a partner in his bathrobe pushing into a female colleague’s hotel room and an apparent pattern of promoting young men even as the firm’s women outperformed them. But here, performance has little to do with promotion and pay: Kleiner Perkins’ defense lawyer said considering an IPO or exit as the only factor in promotion “would be crazy” — the ability to fit into “team KP” and provide “thought leadership” mattered more.

Pao now bears a new burden as well — by speaking up and throwing her name and reputation into this suit, she’s become one of the only women in venture capital to publicly stand against the billionaire kingmakers of the startup world. And today was another slog through her former colleagues’ testimonies attacking her character and moral compass, again casting her as a litigious, scheming woman who slept with a co-worker and then wanted cash.

After long and roving arguments over the past month, today both sides pared down their final pitch. Pao’s lawyer Alan Exelrod focused on the bottom line: Money Pao had earned for the firm. Defense attorney Lynne Hermle focused on Pao’s difficult personality, painting her as toxic in the office.

As always on big days, our liveblog covered the blow-by-blow from today. Below, a synopsis.

Exelrod Focuses on Performance, Calls the Rest Distraction

In closing statements, Pao’s lawyer Exelrod tried to end the conversation not on salacious details like all-male dinner parties but on a more basic fact: Pao was a qualified investor whose contributions were valued and whose investments did very well.

His first sentences: “We are all here today because Kleiner Perkins broke the law. Kleiner Perkins, however powerful and successful, cannot be above the law. It must adhere to the same standards as all employers — that requires the same standards for promotion be applied to men and to women and that requires the same standards with regard to retaliation.”

He said that she made more for the firm than the men who were promoted.

“Ellen Pao was a hardworking, incredibly thoughtful, productive employee for Kleiner Perkins. She generated more revenue for Kleiner Perkins than any of the men who were promoted in 2012. As of [the] decision to promote in 2012, Ellen Pao drove the returns. The men received the promotions.”

To win a civil case, Exelrod noted, Pao just has to prove that there was even very slight discrimination (not beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof, as in a criminal case).

“One way you can think about this burden of proof is to think about the scales of justice. What is the obligation of the plaintiff? It is to tip it slightly,” Exelrod said. “And the tip can be so slightly as a feather, something small can do it.”

He called Hermle’s focus on Pao’s interpersonal conflicts “a distraction.” The performance reviews were “fraudulent.” He brought up Ted Schlein’s remarks in his testimony that Pao didn’t have “the genetic makeup” to be a venture capitalist. He asked how Kleiner Perkins could have a full-time PR person and not an HR representative.

And over and over Exelrod talked about Kleiner Perkins as “a boys’ club” that lacked a “level playing field” and that women, even those in investing roles, were kept out of leadership.

“Who were the managing members of all these funds?” he asked. “Until Beth Seidenberg in 2015, after Ms. Pao had complained, there had not been one single woman who was a managing member of any of the funds except in China.”

Before the lunch break, he ended on a collage of firm headshots: “This is the class of the boys’ club.”

According to Pao’s expert witness’s estimate, she stood to make $14.5 million in compensation if she had been promoted at Kleiner Perkins and stayed 10 more years at the firm.

Exelrod added an activist flourish to his typically academic tone: “Kleiner Perkins broke the law when they retaliated against somebody for protesting discrimination. The law is meant to protect people who stand up. In Kleiner Perkins’ culture, when you stand up, you get slammed down.”

In firing Pao, he said Kleiner Perkins was “looking to create and continue that boys’ club — that boys’ club that had been there from the start.”

Hermle Focuses on Narrative of Negative, Selfish Pao

Hermle honed in on her argument that Pao received ample support and mentorship at Kleiner Perkins but failed because of her nasty, selfish personality: “These complaints are simply a continuation of Ellen Pao’s attempts to blame others for her own failures,” said Hermle, as opener.

Hermle kicked off her arguments with sarcasm.

Beth Seidenberg and Mary Meeker said they weren’t discriminated against, “but Ellen Pao knows better,” Hermle said in a sing-songy voice.

Pao’s attorney said Meeker was only promoted after Pao filed her lawsuit.

“Mary Meeker denied that in her testimony. But Ellen Pao knows better,” Hermle said, to the same tune, repeating it a few more times in other scenarios.

When Pao started getting bad performance reviews, she didn’t go to Meeker or other women for advice. She just wanted to be paid off, Hermle said. (De Baubigny did testify that Pao would ask her out to coffee for advice, conversations de Baubigny later recounted on the stand.)

“As sometimes happens when a clever employee sees the writing on the wall, Ellen Pao went on the offense,” Hermle said.

And as for this notion that Pao is suing for women’s rights, this was nowhere near her original intent, Hermle said.

“Her complaints in January 2012 were never designed to help other women,” Hermle said. “If they had been, they would have looked very different.”

Not only did Pao have extra support from John Doerr, she refused to change when her performance reviews turned negative, Hermle said, probably because her fancy education made her full of herself.

“Maybe because of her record of academic achievements, she was already a success in her own mind and didn’t need to fix anything,” she said.

Hermle cued up a slide entitled, “Pao’s Numerous Conflicts: What Is The Common Denominator?” Pao’s headshot was in the center with various cartoon figures around it to represent partners Pao had exchanged testy emails with over her years at the firm.

“As happens in a small workplace, this corrosive pattern of attack alienated her coworkers and led to tension and distrust,” Hermle said.

Her eyes were only on money, Hermle argued.

“She wrote to her friend Lori Park, ‘I need to stay at KP until Nov when my carry in fund 14 vests,’” Hermle said, cuing up the email.

This lawsuit comes because Pao knew she was going to be terminated at Kleiner Perkins and she couldn’t get another job, Hermle said. According to Hermle, Pao has never been on “Team Kleiner Perkins,” she’s always been on “Team Ellen,” and her assertions that other female partners were promoted after her lawsuit is only her latest brazen attempt to claim credit for other people’s accomplishments.

About that level playing field? Hermle said: “Because of John Doerr’s mentorship and support, Ellen Pao started on that playing field with points already on the board.”

“The writing was on the wall,” Hermle said. “Even a fool could see that, and Ellen Pao was no fool.”

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Venture capital is an intentionally obscure world with difficult-to-parse financials, internal organization and pathways for success. It’s also an industry shrouded by euphemism. Because venture capitalists don’t talk the way the rest of us do.

One thing the Pao vs. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers lawsuit has given the world is an unparalleled peek into the thought processes and inboxes of some of Silicon Valley’s most influential venture capitalists.

And maybe you’re a self-starting thought leader looking for learnings that move the ball forward up your power alley. Or maybe you’re not. Either way, here’s a special expert guide for you, with definitions taken from the context of the trial.

Board Buddies

Definition: “Where a junior partner goes to a board with a senior partner to kind of learn how to be involved and help. … I really do believe it’s an apprenticeship business, and you really do need to learn the business, and one of the ways we accelerate that is to be a board buddy.” —Matt Murphy, general partner at Kleiner.

Example: Trae Vassallo reported to the independent investigator Stephen Hirschfeld that men didn’t want to “board buddy” with women.

“Trae felt it was helpful to have board buddies?” Therese Lawless, Pao’s lawyer, asked.

“Yes,” Hirschfeld replied.

“Ms. Vassallo told you that mentoring and sponsorship was really the heart of the partnership, and that the male partners gravitate toward the male partners?” Lawless asked.

“She said the male partners gravitated toward someone and it turned out to be a man; they went after guys. She wasn’t saying to me that they were sexist guys, and I’m only going to align myself with men. As it turned out they felt more comfortable with someone and it was a man,” Hirschfeld said.

Cocky

Definition: “There’s a little bit of arrogance with some entrepreneurs.” —Ted Schlein, Kleiner supervising partner.

Asked a juror: Is there a difference between cocky and confident?

“They can border one another, I suppose, but you kind of want to get the right one.”

Schlein used the word “cocky” in a review of a potential hire to indicate a positive attribute.

Can there be bad cockiness?

“If you’re cocky and by the time you’re done talking to somebody and they don’t like you,” Schlein said.

Magnet Skills

Definition: “[Ellen] didn’t have the personality skills, the magnet skills. I had hesitancy as to whether I thought she could overcome those.” –Schlein.

Example: “Chi-Hua Chien was a magnet for consumer digital innovations and talents. He brought some incredible investments to the partnership. We’re looking for thought leaders who can articulate the vision and serve as magnets, we’re looking for custodians of the brand.” —Juliet de Baubigny, Kleiner’s recruiter.

Meritocracy

Definition: “Kleiner Perkins is flat where possible. For the most part it tries to act like a meritocracy. What you need to be able to do is influence your partners and you have to use your skills as a communicator and an influencer. In a partnership, you have to be successful via influence.” –Schlein

Example: To the jury question of what Juliet de Baubigny meant when she called Silicon Valley a boys club in an online essay, she said: “I grew up in the U.K. and I’m an immigrant and so for me Silicon Valley is a really progressive industry that is also a meritocracy but because there are so many men at the top leadership positions it is a boys club. What’s great is that companies like Google and Facebook are publishing their diversity statistics.”

The judge interjected: “I’m not sure you really answered the question — what is your understanding of boys club?”

“More men than women,” de Baubigny said.

Pattern Matching

Definition: “Male nerds who had no social or sex life trying to get help from an online service. That correlates more with any other success factor that I’ve seen. … So when I see that pattern coming in — which was true of Google — it was very easy to decide to invest.” —John Doerr, leading Kleiner partner.

Example: “It’s very important to have very good people skills because at the root of everything is the ability to source, to make entrepreneurs want to work with you — next thing is honing that judgement and being able to pick and figure out what makes a good investment, a lot of that’s done in pattern matching.” –Schlein

Power Alley

Definition: “RPX had growth with good revenue potential. … The venture was sourced by John Doerr, and I don’t remember the exact sequence but John had Randy [Komisar] and Ellen [Pao] on it to determine whether it was a good investment to make cause it wasn’t up his power alley, if you will, his area of expertise.” –Matt Murphy

Power Corridor

Definition: “When you asked last week whether I would be uncomfortable sitting across from Ajit, I didn’t realize that I would be opening myself up to sitting in the back corner of guest offices. I’d much prefer to remain in the central area or ‘power corridor’ where I have more opportunity to interact with others. I also believe it is better for the firm if visitors see at least 2 women (assuming Aileen returns soon) in the main area among the 11 men, especially given the large number of female partners you have hired.” –Ellen Pao

Self Starter

Definition: “To be networking, to be out in the marketplace, to rub elbows, you have to be a self starter.” –Schlein

Example: “To be effective at sourcing in venture capital, you have to be a self starter. Venture capitalists sell by persuading the people who are involved or potentially involved in a company to accept their offer of investment — but perhaps more importantly you’re constantly trying to bring new people into the company. Persuasion is important.” —Chi-Hua Chien, senior Kleiner partner.

Thought Leader

Definitions:

“Thought leadership really means expertise in a domain that is investable.” — Wen Hsieh, Kleiner employee.

“You need to be a thought leader among your peers if you’re going to be effective. Being a great partner is as important as being smart and being right. Because the partnership did not have a hierarchy, influence comes through thought leadership.” —Randy Komisar, general partner at Kleiner.

“We’re looking for individuals with deep technology backgrounds, who have a vision for where the industry is likely to evolve, we’re looking for thought leaders who can articulate the vision and serve as magnets, we’re looking for custodians of the brand.” –de Baubigny

“[Ellen was] trying harder but still struggling to find an interesting sector and give learnings that move the ball forward. … On this notion of thought leadership and putting together some kind of a piece that moves the ball forward — helps us figure out where to spend time, where the relevant companies are.” –Murphy

“Ted, we’re about a week away from the 60 day mark that we established in Ellen’s review to reassess her performance. While I’ve seen a bit more effort since our conversation with her … I still see her struggling to establish thought leadership.” –Murphy

“I’m trying not to use the word ‘thought leadership’ because it’s kind of sensitive here.” –Wen Hsieh

Too Native

Definition: “Being too native on something, that’s what we mean, you’ve lost objectivity, you believe and want it too much and you no longer have a sense of truth.” –Murphy

Example: “Ellen can tend to go too native.” –Schlein

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.