After more than three weeks of testimony, the plaintiffs in Ellen Pao's high-profile gender bias suit against her former venture capital employer has rested its case.

So far, the picture painted of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the firm where Pao worked, has been far from flattering: a work environment where, according to witnesses, strong personalities are constantly clashing, coworkers bicker often, and employees come and go at both the junior and senior levels.

Even worse, Pao’s lawyers have worked to bring out the raunchiest and most offensive details of witnesses’ testimony. A male partner allegedly said in a meeting that women “kill the buzz.” Women were allegedly left out of all-male ski trips and dinners at Al Gore’s apartment. Conversations in a private jet plane to New York included talk of porn stars, “hot” female executives, a Victoria’s Secret fashion show, and the Playboy mansion, according to witness testimony. Pao has also claimed that a more senior male colleague gave her a book of erotic poetry, Leonard Cohen’s “Book of Longing,” as a bizarre Valentine’s Day gift—then invited her to dinner when his wife was out of town. And Pao's lawyers have worked to show that a coworker Pao had an affair with also made inappropriate sexual advances toward other women at the firm.

Though Kleiner’s defense team has sought to call Pao’s version of these events into question—explaining, for instance, that the more senior colleague could have been alluding to his and Pao’s shared interest in Buddhism with his gift—it’s likely that the jury won’t forget these visceral anecdotes anytime soon. To make its case that Pao was not the victim of gender discrimination but her own missteps, Kleiner has some steep obstacles to overcome. The case may be complex. But the firm hardly came out of the first half of the case unscathed.

Binders Full of Performance Reviews

In presenting the case, lawyers on both sides have walked the jury through multiple performance reviews from Pao’s tenure at Kleiner between 2005 and 2012. Kleiner has tried to establish that Pao received negative reviews from within the company all throughout her years, saying Pao had many conflicts with her coworkers at the firm.

By 2011, the managing partners were in agreement about wanting to let her go, according to testimony. But John Doerr—Pao’s boss and longtime mentor at Kleiner—pushed for a revision in her performance review to make it more positive. “He asked to give Ellen another chance,” Ted Schlein, one of the managing partners at the firm, has testified on the witness stand. “I disagreed but I did it.”

Pao herself testified that she was not sure she wanted the job in the first place, initially viewing the position as “too junior.” In 2007, she said she had considered leaving the firm, going as far as alerting the managing partners, and in 2009, she interviewed with Google Ventures. During these times, however, John Doerr sold her on working for Kleiner—a point the plaintiffs have emphasized in an effort to show that the firm thought she was qualified for the job.

But by 2012, the year Pao filed her lawsuit, Doerr agreed with the rest of the partners that Pao should be transitioned out of the company. In cross-exam, Kleiner revealed what is likely to be a crux of its defense, that Pao failed because she could not get along with people. She “could not own a room,” according to testimony. She was “not a team player.” Pao left the firm in October 2012.

But that approach also has a potential flaw. No, Pao did not have the glowing reviews her male counterparts who were eventually promoted had (one male partner was described as “a huge value-add” and “a great sourcer”). She lacked nuance, according to performance reviews. But ultimately, the suggestion was that she failed because she didn't possess certain skills based largely on her personality traits. It begs the question of whether Pao herself was the problem, or whether the problem was a corporate culture in which women were penalized for traits for which men were rewarded.

Internal Investigation Biased?

Yesterday, Lawless called a final expert witness to show an internal investigation into gender bias at Kleiner was incomplete and favored company management.

According to Allison West of Employment Practices Specialists, the outside investigator hired by Kleiner Perkins, Stephen Hirschfeld, did not do an adequate comparison of the criticisms levied against both men and women in similar positions at the firm. She noted Pao was described as “territorial” and that she had “sharp elbows”—similar language used in some of male partners’ performance reviews. Yet three male partners were promoted, while Pao was not.

“He only looked at apples, he didn’t look at apples and oranges,” West testified yesterday in San Francisco Superior Court. “Investigators should look at facts, compare reviews and ask: Is there a double standard?”

Some of the facts themselves that emerged from that investigation won't help Kleiner’s case. For example, the firm “could not find” its gender discrimination policy, though it was cited in offer letters. The firm finally drafted a new policy in 2012 after two written complaints—one by Pao and another by a former general partner at the firm—had been sent to management. That partner, Trae Vassallo, told Hirschfeld she had once compared the profits both the men and women made for the firm. According to her calculations, the women outperformed the men.

Hirschfeld, however, decided not to use Vassallo’s comparison, concluding he had enough information from interviews with 17 employees at the firm to draw conclusions. His final report found that there was no discrimination at Kleiner Perkins, and that the firm had not retaliated against Pao over her complaints.

Mary Meeker, ‘Queen of the Internet,’ Testifies

On Monday afternoon, the so-called “Queen of the Internet,” Mary Meeker, who leads Kleiner Perkins’ digital-growth fund, took the stand. Meeker, who Kleiner had apparently tried to recruit for about a decade, testified that she herself did not witness any gender discrimination while working for the firm. And she went further: “I think Kleiner Perkins is the best place to be a woman in the [venture capital] business,” Meeker testified.

Even so, Meeker did concede to hearing about a sexual harassment incident between Trae Vassallo and Ajit Nazre, the same colleague with whom Pao admitted having an affair and who she claims retaliated against her when she ended the relationship.

Under questioning from Lynne Hermle, Kleiner’s defense attorney, Meeker testified she was indeed invited to a ski trip Pao previously described as an “all-male event,” though she did not attend. She also testified to attending one of the dinners at Al Gore’s apartment, though she says she was not invited to a previous dinner, and didn’t know whether other women had attended.

When asked to give her opinion of a male partner with whom she worked closely, Meeker was all praises. She described the partner, Chi-Hua Chien, as “very bright,” and “intense with metrics” in delivering presentations. Meeker herself did not work with Pao directly, but her characterization of Pao, based on meetings she’d taken with her, was that she was “certainly more passive, but thoughtful.”

Meeker's success at Kleiner Perkins is meant to show women could flourish at the firm. In 2011, she became the first-ever female managing member of a Kleiner fund, and life-sciences expert Beth Seidenberg was also made a managing member of the 2012 fund. Aileen Lee was promoted to a senior partner position in 2005, and Trae Vassallo was promoted from junior partner to general partner at one point. John Doerr, in his testimony, has stated that women make up 20 percent of investors at Kleiner—above the industry average of 6 percent. Meeker, on the witness stand, was convincing in conveying how she thoroughly enjoyed the work that gave her a spot in this minority group.

In her testimony, Meeker often drifted into long-winded platitudes about Kleiner had "a great tradition," and how working with her teammates was a pleasure. But one juror’s question suggested at least a moment of ambivalence. “Because you are not a managing partner, did you think about leaving Kleiner Perkins?” the juror asked.

“Not because I’m not a managing partner, no,” Meeker responded.