Ellen Pao’s law
suit seeking $16 million against former employer Kleiner Perkins Caufield &
Byers is over. It ended with a defense verdict. This high profile case,
according to an Associated Press article on March 23, 2015 “put a spotlight on
gender imbalance in Silicon Valley has prompted some technology and
venture-capital companies to re-examine their cultures and practices, even
before a jury reaches its verdict.” After the verdict, Pao reportedly said, “I
have told my story and thousands of people have heard it. If I helped to level
the playing field for women and minorities in venture capital, then the battle
was worth it,” Associated Press, Mar. 27, 2015.
The defense
verdict was probably in no small measure the result of the cross-examination by
defense lawyer Lynne Hermle (pictured above) that told a different story from Pao’s. Counsel’s
cross was designed to show that Pao had misrepresented and twisted facts.
Hermle used the concession-seeking cross-examination technique to show that Pao
was passed over for promotion due to her conflicts with colleagues, not out of
gender discrimination. For example, as a visual, Hermle used a chart that Ellen
Pao had created that listed “resentments” that she had against a partner in the
firm. Hermle got Pao to concede that she clashed with a secretary who was late
for work and got in a yelling match with a fellow female junior partner. Lynne
Hermle’s cross-examination is an excellent example of how to get a party to
concede facts and tell the cross-examiner’s story to the jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment