Ellen Pao’s lawyer concludes: Kleiner Perkins is a boys’ club

Ellen Pao’s lawyer Alan Exelrod shared his closing remarks on her sexual discrimination lawsuit today, as court proceedings on the suit draw to a close — one month after they began on February 24.

Exelrod’s speech aimed to prove three points: That Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers (KPCB) discriminated against Pao based on her gender; that the firm retaliated against Pao; and that KPCB did not provide reasonable protection from sexual discrimination.

The lawyer for Kleiner Perkins, Lynne Hermle, also began her closing statements today, after Exelrod’s, but didn’t finish before court adjourned for the day. Hermle’s closing will conclude tomorrow morning.

In Exelrod’s remarks, he said that Kleiner Perkin’s top leadership “ran Kleiner Perkins like a boys’ club.”

He started with addressing discrimination at Kleiner. Going point by point he told the jury that Pao made more money than her male counterparts, had more experience, had a longer tenure at Kleiner, and still wasn’t able to make partner. He also reminded the jury that Pao’s co-worker Trae Vassallo, who also complained of sexual discrimination, didn’t make partner either.

Later on, he pointed out that senior partner Mary Meeker didn’t become a managing partner until Pao complained, despite Meeker’s high level of responsibility at KPCB.

Then Exelrod reviewed Pao’s work history — perhaps the most disputed component of this case. He said Pao did good work managing Lehigh Technologies (a KPCB investment) and played a crucial role in an investment in RPX, a company that later went public and made KPCB a lot of money. After exhibiting solid performance, Pao indicated in her self-review that she wanted to be an investor. Exelrod said general partner John Doerr was less than receptive to her desire to move up the ladder.

He said this caused Pao to seek opportunities elsewhere, including a position at Google Ventures. However, Doerr talked her into staying at KPCB.

The defense has built a case around Pao’s inexperience and poor performance. To combat that, Exelrod showed ways in which Pao excelled as an investor, like when Pao had the foresight to recommend an investment in Twitter in 2007. General partner Matt Murphy shut down that idea at the time. However, the firm did end up investing in Twitter three years later, but it was well after the company had achieved some level of success — and a much higher valuation.

As a junior partner, Pao was allowed to make one investment a year, which she ultimately did with Flipboard. Exelrod pointed out that none of the men on the team, junior or otherwise, were held to this one-investment-a-year standard. He also highlighted Pao’s expertise in mobile apps and enterprise software, a stark contrast to the defense’s portrayal of Pao as having no “thought leadership”.

Exelrod said that by 2011, Pao’s companies were all performing well. However Ted Schlein, another general partner, did not think Pao was cut out to be an investor. Why? Exelrod detailed Schlein’s testimony, where he said that Pao didn’t have the right personality or world view, ending his statement by saying that the qualities needed to be an investor weren’t part of her genetic makeup — a comment which Exelrod tore into as sexist.

Pao’s 2011 performance review did not reflect what Exelrod said was a stellar year. According to Exelrod, there were a lot of issues with the 2011 review, including commentary from two of Pao’s colleagues, Chi-Hua Chien and Ajit Nazre (who she had an affair with). According to Exelrod there were two versions of Pao’s review: one that included the names of Nazre and Chien, and one that only listed the digital team’s senior partners. The second version added partners Mary Meeker and Aileen Lee, neither of whom actually contributed comments to Pao’s review, in place of Chien and Nazre.

But, Exelrod said, even with the added criticism, Pao’s review was no worse than some of her colleagues, like Chien, who was similarly noted for being aggressive or “sharp elbowed.” He also noted that Chien, a man, was promoted and Pao was not.

Exelrod touched on KPCB’s male-centric culture, including all-male ski trips and dinners, and a comment from one of KCPB’s investors that women “kill the buzz.” He also briefly mentioned Pao’s relationship with Nazre, which was the original impetus for her complaint of sexual discrimination at the firm. (Pao felt that her colleague was punishing her professionally because they had been in a sexual relationship that she later broke off.)

Exelrod said that KCPB did eventually hire an investigator to look into potential discrimination at the firm, but the investigator ultimately didn’t find evidence of sexual discrimination. Exelrod called the investigator’s findings into question. According to Pao’s testimony, the investigator was angling for a job at KPCB, which may have affected his findings.

To drive the home the notion that KPCB operated a discriminatory workplace, Exelrod noted that all the criticisms against Pao were not based on her actual work. “It was all personality, not about performance, but about personality,” he said.

As for workplace issues, Exelrod said that Kleiner Perkins barely had an human resources department. The firm did have a recruiter in house, named Juliet de Baubigny, who essentially operated as HR and who Ellen Pao did go to with her concerns. Baubigny ultimately testified against Pao and called her a habitual complainer. Exelrod said that an HR person is supposed to be a trusted resource that employees can go to when there are problems.

Exelrod also noted that when asked, KPCB had a lot of difficulty locating their sexual harassment polices. He also re-stated his claim that the sexual discrimination investigator was also unreliable, because of his desire to work for KPCB in the future.

Finally, Exelrod went into the retaliation claim, which is perhaps Pao’s strongest case. Exelrod actually mapped out a timeline from 2009 to 2011 that showed Pao’s work progress against performance reviews from general partners Ted Schlein and John Doerr. He said that both started to criticize Pao for having a female “chip on her shoulder” after she complained about sexism at Kleiner. It’s also worth noting that Doerr was very supportive of Pao throughout her seven years at Kleiner, but that changed recently, Exelrod said.

He also noted that Pao’s manager Matt Murphy didn’t start taking notes on their conversations or her behavior until after she filed her lawsuit in 2011. The way Exelrod painted it, after Pao filed the discrimination suit, she suddenly had a hard time getting meetings with other investors and getting her investment ideas turned into actual investments.

In his final words, Exelrod exhorted the jury not to see Pao as a poor performer, because then she would not be able to claim punitive damages — something the judge allowed Pao to seek at the last minute.

Pao is currently seeking $16 million from KPCB, but punitive damages could land her tens of millions dollars more — if the jury thinks that KPCB is guilty of fraud, oppression, and malice.

Now it’s defense attorney Lynn Hermle’s turn to give closing remarks. We’ll report on that when she concludes tomorrow.