Ellen Pao won't appeal venture capital firm's win in discrimination case, says she lacks resources
Saying that she couldn’t afford to do so, Ellen Pao has announced that she will not appeal a defense verdict in the high-profile employment discrimination case she brought against a storied Silicon Valley venture capital firm.
Pao, a former BigLaw associate with star credentials, also said in a Re/Code column that the case showed her how legal and procedural standards make such a case difficult to win.
“From the first day of trial, I saw how hard it was going to be to win when every potential juror who expressed a belief that sexism exists in tech—a belief that is widely recognized and documented—was not allowed to serve on the jury,” she wrote.
Additionally, “the disparity in legal, PR and financial resources is also tremendous—and the primary reason for my decision to now focus my efforts outside court,” she said in the Thursday column. ” I was lucky to have the resources to bring my case this far. I personally spent significant amounts on expert fees, lawyer costs and Kleiner’s costs. I was at risk of paying much more, as Kleiner asked the court to make me pay nearly $1 million in its expert costs and court fees. Many other costs were borne by my lawyers.”
Although defendant Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers offered to waive $1 million in legal defense costs if Pao agreed not to appeal, she says she is still on the hook for $276,000 in court-awarded costs.
In a written statement, she explained that this is because the Kleiner Perkins offer “required my silence,” reports the San Jose Mercury News.
Kleiner Perkins said in a statement: “We are glad to put this trial behind us. There is no question diversity in the workplace is an important issue. KPCB remains committed to supporting women and minorities in venture capital and technology both inside our firm and within our industry.”
The New York Times (reg. req.) also has a story.
ABAJournal.com: “Silicon Valley agog as trial looms in high-profile sex-discrimination case against Kleiner Perkins”