From the prosecution:<p><a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672582/pao-complaint.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1672...</a><p>From the defence:<p><a href="https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/256174979-Kleiner-Perkins-brief.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/25617...</a><p>--- Personal opinion below ----<p>Not necessarily relevant (I believe it is) but provides some more of a background is her husband (whom she married in 2007) - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Fletcher</a>.<p>Why it's relevant in my opinion? An old saying translates to something along the lines of "you are the sum of who support, live, work and play with", which I find tends to hold very true.<p>From what I've read, but haven't been able to look up sources (someone else might chip in here) - her demands for payment (settlements) have always equated to exactly or greater than the sums owed by both her and her husband to their respective creditors.<p>Edit: I believe she was discriminated against for not being a reliable/honest/good person to work with, not because of her gender.<p>2nd Edit: Having thought about it, I now agree with /u/obstinate below moreso - her husbands dealings have nothing to do with her. We only know of our partners doings from our partners themselves, so we can't truly be objective and tend to err on the side of trust and loyalty.<p>She felt as if she was discriminated against, so he likely supported her in her lawsuit. He's lost his business and a home, so of course she'll do what she can to support him.<p>I still reserve my personal opinion against both, as others will do from reading this against me. I'm leaving my original comment and edit for context.