鮑愛倫（ellenpao）在針對風險投資公司kleinerperkins的性別歧視審判中，提出了懲罰性和補償性賠償的訴訟。今天，哈羅德法官。卡恩支援懲罰性賠償的要求，他說：“有足夠的證據表明，一個合理的陪審員可以得出結論，克萊納珀金斯從事故意性別歧視。”

預計審判將於週二進行結案陳詞。現任Reddit臨時執行長的Pao也將被允許起訴要求賠償損失。她要求賠償因被拒絕升職和2012年被公司解僱而損失的1600萬美元工資。然而，懲罰性賠償通常要高得多，因為顧名思義，這一數額是為了懲罰造成傷害的被告。據《水星新聞》報道，在Pao的案件中，懲罰性賠償金“可能超過1億美元”。Kleiner的律師Lynne Hermle週二要求法官駁回懲罰性賠償金的要求——卡恩接受了這一說法，質疑Pao是否證明瞭惡意、欺詐或壓迫，這讓人有點震驚，懲罰性賠償的標準。這項動議最初是在陪審團不知情的情況下於週二提出的，這是許多公開討論中的一個，這些討論發生在將決定此案的六男六女聽得見不到的地方。昨天，兩個法律小組在陪審團結束後向卡恩法官陳述了數小時的論點，當時舊金山高等**正常關閉。這顯然是一個艱難的決定。這項裁決對矽谷著名的風險投資公司kleinerperkins來說是個陷阱，該公司曾為谷歌、亞馬遜、電子藝界和Uber等公司提供過融資。週二，卡恩法官和保羅的律師艾倫·埃克塞羅德（Alan Exelrod）之間的反覆非常有說服力。除了性別歧視，鮑女士還在起訴報複和未能阻止報複，因為她投訴了一位名叫阿吉特·納茲爾的伴侶。鮑稱，納茲爾向她施壓，使她產生了雙方同意的婚外情，後來他因性騷擾另一名****而被解僱。訴訟稱，克萊納在抱怨被納茲爾排除在外以及其他一些微妙的性別歧視事件後，對她產生了不滿。但卡恩法官似乎不相信保羅的控訴：

Exelrod argued to Kahn that Kleiner Perkins partners are "highly exaggerating Ms. Pao’s interpersonal issues [...] It’s all about her personality." Kahn replied, "Malice, fraud or oppression has to be based on the facts as they actually occurred to the parties involved. To me, I look at this case in a very, very legalistic way. Has Ms. Pao proved each of her claims by a preponderance of the evidence, and has she proved her damages, and has Kleiner Perkins proved any offset of those damages." Exelrod persisted, saying that he’d proved that Chi-Hua Chien and Ajit Nazre, two partners hostile to Pao, gave input on a negative performance review that was "covered up."

作為一個年輕的搭檔，她在表演中表現得很討人喜歡。但最近的一位目擊者，高階合夥人朱麗葉·德·鮑比尼（Juliet de Baubigny）對鮑的“掩蓋”說法提出了質疑。德鮑比尼曾經幫助管理克萊納的年度績效評估，其中包括提供反饋的員工名單。她作證說，如果合夥人的意見沒有包括在最終草案中，名字就被“刪除”。

包庇是鮑的申訴中提出的許多指控之一，這些指控似乎得到了證實或爭議，這取決於陪審團是否相信原告或被告，而不是根據明確的證據或事實。

更新：在卡恩法官今天上午發出的一份檔案中，他首先指出，他在法律上有義務支援原告。

Defendant Kleiner Perkins’ motion for n***uit on plaintiff Ms. Pao’s request for punitive damages is denied. Interpreting the evidence most favorably to Ms. Pao and most strongly against Kleiner Perkins, and resolving all presumpti***, inferences, and doubts in favor of Ms. Pao, as I am required to do on a n***uit motion (Wegner, Fairbank, and Epstein, California Practice Guide: Cilvil Trials and Evidence (The Rutter Group 2014) 12:203), there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could find, as to Ms. Pao’s claims for gender discrimination and retaliation, that Kleiner Perkins acted with malice, fraud or oppression. Per this standard, there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Kleiner Perkins engaged in intentional gender discrimination by failing to promote Ms. Pao and terminating her employment and that Kleiner Perkins attempted to hide its illegal conduct by offering knowingly false and pre textual explanati*** for its decisi*** not to promote Ms. Pao and to terminate her employment. […] Similarly, per the n***uit standard, there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Kleiner Perkins retaliated against Ms. Pao for making a protected complaint in December 2011 and January 2012 and for filing this lawsuit by failing to promote her and terminating her employment and that Kleiner Perkins attempted to hide its illegal conduct by offering knowingly false and pre textual explanati*** for its decisi*** not to promote Ms. Pao and to terminate her employment.