鲍爱伦（ellenpao）在针对风险投资公司kleinerperkins的性别歧视审判中，提出了惩罚性和补偿性赔偿的诉讼。今天，哈罗德法官。卡恩支持惩罚性赔偿的要求，他说：“有足够的证据表明，一个合理的陪审员可以得出结论，克莱纳珀金斯从事故意性别歧视。”

预计审判将于周二进行结案陈词。现任Reddit临时首席执行官的Pao也将被允许起诉要求赔偿损失。她要求赔偿因被拒绝升职和2012年被公司解雇而损失的1600万美元工资。然而，惩罚性赔偿通常要高得多，因为顾名思义，这一数额是为了惩罚造成伤害的被告。据《水星新闻》报道，在Pao的案件中，惩罚性赔偿金“可能超过1亿美元”。Kleiner的律师Lynne Hermle周二要求法官驳回惩罚性赔偿金的要求——卡恩接受了这一说法，质疑Pao是否证明了恶意、欺诈或压迫，这让人有点震惊，惩罚性赔偿的标准。这项动议最初是在陪审团不知情的情况下于周二提出的，这是许多公开讨论中的一个，这些讨论发生在将决定此案的六男六女听得见不到的地方。昨天，两个法律小组在陪审团结束后向卡恩法官陈述了数小时的论点，当时旧金山高等**正常关闭。这显然是一个艰难的决定。这项裁决对硅谷著名的风险投资公司kleinerperkins来说是个陷阱，该公司曾为谷歌、亚马逊、电子艺界和Uber等公司提供过融资。周二，卡恩法官和保罗的律师艾伦·埃克塞罗德（Alan Exelrod）之间的反复非常有说服力。除了性别歧视，鲍女士还在起诉报复和未能阻止报复，因为她投诉了一位名叫阿吉特·纳兹尔的伴侣。鲍称，纳兹尔向她施压，使她产生了双方同意的婚外情，后来他因性骚扰另一名****而被解雇。诉讼称，克莱纳在抱怨被纳兹尔排除在外以及其他一些微妙的性别歧视事件后，对她产生了不满。但卡恩法官似乎不相信保罗的控诉：

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."

作为一个年轻的搭档，她在表演中表现得很讨人喜欢。但最近的一位目击者，高级合伙人朱丽叶·德·鲍比尼（Juliet de Baubigny）对鲍的“掩盖”说法提出了质疑。德鲍比尼曾经帮助管理克莱纳的年度绩效评估，其中包括提供反馈的员工名单。她作证说，如果合伙人的意见没有包括在最终草案中，名字就被“删除”。

包庇是鲍的申诉中提出的许多指控之一，这些指控似乎得到了证实或争议，这取决于陪审团是否相信原告或被告，而不是根据明确的证据或事实。

更新：在卡恩法官今天上午发出的一份文件中，他首先指出，他在法律上有义务支持原告。

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.