After Ellen Pao filed her gender-bias suit against big-name venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, her peers rated her performance positively, but she received a negative performance review from senior members of management, according to court testimony.

Ted Schlein, a managing parter at KPCB, confirmed this on the witness stand in a San Francisco court today, and said that, as part of the team evaluating Pao that year, he was likely aware of Pao’s lawsuit against the firm as he was providing input for her review.

Schlein was testifying as the Pao case approached the end of its first week in a San Francisco court. His deposition provided another window into on the inner workings of one of the most prominent venture capital firms in Silicon Valley. As the trial continues to unfold, it provides an unusually detailed look at gender issues within the world of high-tech, and it could have far-reaching consequences over how the tech industry views and treats women in the future. Pao was later dismissed from the company—in October 2012—and with her suit, she said that gender bias played a role in her dismissal.

According to Schlein’s testimony, by the time Pao’s performance was being evaluated, he wasn’t the only member of senior management who was aware Pao might be suing the firm. Even board members of the companies Pao was working with had probably heard of the lawsuit in the media, he said.

In court, Pao's legal team tried to show a change in the way she evaluated. One bullet point in Pao’s review from that year read: “CEOs/board members of companies where EP is involved have asked other KP Partners for help because EP was not providing desired level of impact or leadership.” The year before, Pao’s boss and longtime mentor, John Doerr, had written: “I don’t know how a junior partner could have had a better year than Ellen had.”

In past years, according to court testimony, Pao had been able to ask for which of the board members of the companies she dealt with had rated her, but in 2012, when she put in the same request, she didn't receive that information.

Pao's legal team also tried to paint a picture of a firm that didn’t give women a seat at the table. At the 2009 CIOSE conference, a conference for chief information officers, which Kleiner Perkins routinely attends, Pao was asked to sit in the back with staff, while four Kleiner Perkins parters—Schlein, Murphy, Nazre, and Lane—sat at the front table.

At the trial, Schlein testified that the conference organizer had said someone from the firm had to sit in the back. “Why didn’t you go sit in the back?” Pao’s lawyer, Exelrod, asked Schlein.

“That’s not how the meetings work," Schlein responded. Later, Schlein testified that other partners, including some male Kleiner Perkins partners, didn’t always have a seat at the table.

Schlein, responding to an email in which Pao voiced her concerns about the move, wrote: “I really did not think it was a very big deal to us in who sits at a table or does not... Ellen is always sensitive to her ‘status.’ I actually think this is a personality flaw of hers.”

In its rebuttal, the Kleiner Perkins defense team tried to prove that there was no retaliation—and that Pao had received criticism for her performance throughout the years. In opening arguments, the Kleiner team showed slides from 2005 to 2012 that found fault with Pao for not creating trusting relationships with partners. Schlein, in his testimony, said he thought Pao’s skills were better suited for an operating role rather than an investing one, because she was good at “getting stuff done,” but that she didn’t have the ability to understand nuances and didn’t have the instincts required to succeed as a venture capitalist.

And, Schlein testified, there were actually very few promotions within the firm. According to Schlein, Kleiner had only promoted three people—Doerr in 1982, Joseph Lacob in 1992, and Doug Mackenzie in 1994—in its first thirty years. It promoted Aileen Lee in 2005. And, while there were no female managing members at the firm, there have only been 8 managing members at Kleiner Perkins in all of its history, according to Schlein’s testimony.

Correction 7:20 PM EST 02/27/2015: An earlier version of this article stated that, according to court testimony, there was a big change in the wording of Pao’s negative performance review in 2012, after filing a lawsuit with KPCB in that year. But performance reviews from 2005 to 2011 show Pao received some negative feedback from Kleiner Perkins management even during earlier years.