clock menu more-arrow no yes

The Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Jury Close to a Verdict

Almost there.

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.