This article contains better quotes from the ruling: http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/21/8267273/judge-in-kleiner-perkins-trial-just-ruled-that http://www.theverg

This article contains better quotes from the ruling: http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/21/8267273/judge-in-kleiner-perkins-trial-just-ruled-that http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/21/8267273/judge-in-kleiner-p... "Defendant Kleiner Perkins’ motion for nonsuit 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 presumptions, inferences, and doubts in favor of Ms. Pao, as I am required to do on a nonsuit 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 explanations for its decisions not to promote Ms. Pao and to terminate her employment. […] Similarly, per the nonsuit 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 explanations for its decisions not to promote Ms. Pao and to terminate her employment." --- The judge is essentially saying that IF one interprets all the evidence and testimony, strongly in favor of Pao and against KP, then there would be malice/fraud/oppression. The judge explicitly states that he is following a mandatory legal standard. This is not his subjective interpretation. The judge is not saying anything about the actual strength of Pao's case.