SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers is seeking to recover about $973,000 in costs from a high profile gender discrimination trial that captivated Silicon Valley, according to a court filing on Thursday. 
 
 Ellen Pao leaves San Francisco Superior Court Civic Center Courthouse during a lunch break in San Francisco, California March 25, 2015. REUTERS/Stephen Lam 
 
 A jury cleared Kleiner Perkins in March of claims it short-circuited former partner Ellen Pao’s career because she is a woman. The trial helped spark a wide discussion about gender at the center of the U.S. technology industry. 
 
 Kleiner has offered to waive its legal costs should Pao choose not to appeal, according to firm spokeswoman Christina Lee. Kleiner’s costs request includes about $865,000 in expert witness fees, the court filing said. 
 
 “We believe that women in technology would be best served by having all parties focus on making progress on the issues of gender diversity outside of continued litigation,” Lee said in a statement. 
 
 Pao and her legal team are considering the proposal, said Heather Wilson, a spokeswoman for Pao. 
 
 Pao, now interim chief executive at social-news service Reddit, claimed her standing at Kleiner Perkins crumbled after she ended a brief affair with a partner. Her career deteriorated after he and Kleiner Perkins started retaliating against her in a climate that was overall unfriendly toward women, her lawyers argued. 
 
 After the verdict, three jurors told Reuters they had focused on Pao’s increasingly negative performance reviews, which undermined her argument that she deserved to be promoted. 
 
 Kleiner’s offer to withdraw its costs request in exchange for an end to the case, is common when defendants prevail in employment lawsuits. Should Pao decide to pursue an appeal, her case would be heard by California’s First District Court of Appeal. 
 
 According to Westlaw data, out of 49 decisions involving discrimination and retaliation over the past two years, the First District affirmed 26 of 31 cases where the employer won in the trial court, or 84 percent. Only five cases were reversed. 
 
 Meanwhile the court, which covers San Francisco and 11 other Northern California counties, handed victory to employers in more than half of the cases they lost in the lower courts, reversing 10 of 18 cases. ||||| Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE Ellen Pao may get a substantial break on the pricey legal bill her four-week gender bias trial amassed. Judge Harold Kahn tentatively ruled Wednesday that Pao, a former junior partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, owes the company $276,000. Wochit 
 
 Ellen Pao, a former venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, arrives at the San Francisco Civic Center Courthouse in San Francisco, CA on Tuesday, March 3, 2015. (Photo: Martin E. Klimek, USA TODAY) 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO—Ellen Pao will have to pay $275,966 in costs for her failed discrimination and retaliation case against her former employer, venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, or about a quarter of what the company had asked for. 
 
 On Wednesday, Judge Harold Kahn issued a tentative ruling on the issue of costs incurred by Kleiner. 
 
 Pao lost her case charging gender discrimination and retaliation against Kleiner on March 27. 
 
 As was its legal right, on April 23, Kleiner asked that Pao repay $972,814 in costs for expert fees, depositions, transcription and travel for expert witnesses it had incurred during the trial. 
 
 Last week, Pao filed a reply in San Francisco Superior Court, saying she should not have to pay Kleiner's "gargantuan and unreasonable charges." 
 
 Kahn on Wednesday weighed in with a ruling that "granted in part and denied in part" both sides. 
 
 In a five-page document very reminiscent of his dry wit during the five-week long trial, Kahn went through each of Pao's requests. 
 
 Kahn allowed most of the costs Kleiner has listed in its initial filing, including for jury food ($177.56), filing and motion fees ($240) and technology equipment rental ($7,196.) 
 
 However, he noted that under the Fair Employment and Housing Act , the court must consider the economic resources of both sides and "scale" them so as to be fair. 
 
 While noting that Pao "is not indigent," Kahn also said that Kleiner has "vastly" greater economic resources than she does. 
 
 Because of that, he scaled back the costs of Kleiner's expert witnesses to be more in line with those that Pao hired and then charged her that amount. 
 
 That reduced the costs Pao must repay to Kleiner from about $970,000 to closer to $275,000, though Kahn at the end of his ruling noted, "The parties are urged to check my math." 
 
 In a statement, Kleiner's communications partner Christina Lee said the firm was pleased with the result. 
 
 "This tentative ruling recognizes that our settlement offer was reasonable and made in good faith. It also recognizes the cost rules still apply when a plaintiff refuses a reasonable settlement offer and forces the parties to go through an expensive trial," she said 
 
 Pao, now interim CEO at the online forum Reddit, declined to comment. 
 
 The hearing will be held on Thursday. 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1Lg6ioc ||||| CLOSE The jury ruled against Ellen Pao on all claims in her sex discrimination suit against Kleiner Perkins after an initial tangle of confusion about the verdict. Elizabeth Weise, reporting from San Francisco Superior Court, explains what happened. Chris Wiggins for USA TODAY 
 
 Ellen Pao, who is suing venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, hugs her lawyer, Therese Lawless, after closing arguments in the case ended March 25, 2015. (Photo: Vicki Behringer) 
 
 SAN FRANCISCO — A jury ruled against Ellen Pao on Friday in her sex discrimination case against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. 
 
 The jury found Kleiner Perkins did not discriminate against Pao on the basis of gender, did not keep her from a promotion because of her gender, took reasonable steps to prevent gender discrimination at the firm and did not retaliate against her for complaining about gender discrimination. 
 
 As the courtroom convened to hear the verdict around 2 p.m. local time today, Silicon Valley was literally on pins and needles in anticipation of who would win the closely watched case that highlighted a gender gap in the industry. Pao, after all, was taking on the venerable venture-capital firm behind Google, Amazon.com, Genentech and scores of others. 
 
 And it was Kleiner Perkins that won on all counts. 
 
 "Today's verdict reaffirms that Ellen Pao's claims have no legal merit. We are grateful to the jury for its careful examination of the facts," Kleiner Perkins said in a statement. 
 
 "There is no question gender diversity in the workplace is an important issue," the VC firm said. "KPCB remains committed to supporting women in venture capital and technology both inside our firm and within our industry." 
 
 As the jury forewoman read out the "no" of the first part of the verdict, Pao's lawyer, Therese Lawless, reached over and squeezed her shoulder. As the list of "no's" continued, there were a few muted gasps in the room. 
 
 Next came a hiccup on the question of whether or not Pao was retaliated against because she wrote a memo about what she believed was gender discrimination at the firm or because she eventually filed a lawsuit against the firm. 
 
 The jury forewoman initially told Judge Harold Kahn the jury had found Pao was not retaliated against for speaking up about discrimination at the firm. 
 
 Kahn then polled the jury to get each juror's vote on the record. When he did, the vote on the fourth claim of retaliation was eight for no, she was not retaliated against, and four for yes, she was. In civil court, a three-quarters vote, which would be at least nine for no, is required. 
 
 The judge told the jury members to return to their deliberations. About two hours later, the jury returned with a 9-3 verdict against Pao on the retaliation claim. 
 
 One juror changed his mind between the original decision being made in the jury room and walking into the courtroom, juror Steve Sammut said during a quickly-organized news conference afterwards. 
 
 To his mind, the most compelling support for Kleiner came when the jury looked at annual reviews for several partners that were introduced into the testimony. 
 
 The "areas to improve" tended to stay the same for Pao, he said. Other staffers, both male and female, who were later promoted to senior partner tended to have areas of poor performance drop off and new ones come up, he said. 
 
 Juror Marshalette Ramsey had the opposite reaction.To her, the performance reviews showed clear sexism. 
 
 The same kinds of personality traits might be cited in the reviews, but depending on how it was worded and whether the person was male or female, "it could either propel you to promotion or termination," she said. 
 
 However she was adamant that the jury was not divided between men and women. "I was the only woman" on Pao's side, she said. 
 
 She was not bitter about the outcome. "I think Ellen Pao has opened all our eyes," to problems of sexism in the workplace, she said. 
 
 PAO'S SUIT WAS CLOSELY WATCHED 
 
 Pao's suit asked for $16 million in lost wages and future earnings, as well as a possible $144 million in punitive damages. 
 
 Pao joined Kleiner in 2005 as chief of staff to John Doerr, a highly-regarded general partner at the firm. She began to transition into a role as junior investing partner beginning in 2010. 
 
 She was fired on Oct. 1, 2012. She says that was because she had complained about gender discrimination, though Kleiner said it was because she didn't have what it took to become a senior investment partner. 
 
 In her suit, Pao accused the powerful firm of not promoting her to senior partner because she was a woman and retaliating against her after she began talking with senior staff about what she said were problems with sex discrimination beginning in December 2011. 
 
 Kleiner's stance was that Pao was part of a general "up or out" system at the firm, where many junior partners worked at the firm over the years but few were promoted to senior partner. 
 
 Even though Pao lost, the trial was a win for women, said Joan Williams, an expert on gender law and professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. 
 
 "There's no turning back," she said. "This case will have an impact on how venture capital and tech in general run their organizations, regardless." 
 
 It's remarkable the case even came to public trial, said Noreen Farrell, executive director for Equal Rights Advocates, a non-profit women's rights organization based in San Francisco. Few women stand up to this kind of discrimination in the venture capital industry because of "this fear of retaliation and the wrath of these really rich companies," she said. 
 
 "This case has already blown the lid off what's happening at this intersection of tech and finance in a very public way," she said. 
 
 After the verdict was read, Pao thanked her family, friends and legal team for their support. 
 
 "I want to thank the people all over the world who reached out to me with their stories. My story is their story," she said. 
 
 "If I've helped to level the playing field for women and minorities in venture capital, then the battle was worth it. Now," she said, "it's time for me to get back to my career." 
 
 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1bCYLAZ
– Even though Ellen Pao lost her gender-discrimination suit against a former employer, she's still widely hailed as a hero for bringing the boys' club atmosphere of Silicon Valley under a microscope. But now she's got a tough choice on her hands: The venture-capital firm she sued, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, says she owes almost $1 million in legal fees—but it will drop its pursuit of the money if she doesn't appeal last month's ruling, reports the Wall Street Journal. Pao's attorneys say they will have a decision in a few weeks. Kleiner Perkins says it offered Pao about $1 million as a settlement before the trial began, but received no response from her legal team. Because of that offer, the company can now go after Pao for expensive witness fees, explains the New York Times. One factor that will surely weigh on the decision: A review of previous cases suggests that Pao has only a slim chance of winning on appeal, reports Reuters.