Ms. Pao (Photo: Kleiner Perkins)

When last we left Ellen Pao's gender discrimination case against venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins, matters had reached the inevitable long, slow legal slog to determine whether the suit would ever see court. However, Ms. Pao was still getting up and going to what must've been the most awkward office environment since M.A.S.H, as per a June Quora answer.

However, she's now returned to the Q&A site and added an update, first spotted by AllThingsD:

"I have been terminated from my job at KPCB. On Monday afternoon, senior management told me to clean out my office, leave, and not come back.

Thank you, Quora community, for your support."

AllThingsD reached out to Kleiner Perkins for comment and were told that Ms. Pao is actually being eased inexorably out the door over issues completely and totally unrelated to the lawsuit:

"Ms. Pao’s Quora post is misleading.  She remains an employee of the firm.  Because of long standing issues having no relationship or bearing on the litigation, Kleiner approached Ms. Pao to facilitate her transition, over an extended period of time, out of the firm."

Sure, okay.

Ms. Pao's next move remains to be seen, but a Kleiner spokesperson told AllThingsD that the proposed terms of her departure "are generous, fair and intended to support Ms. Pao in a successful career transition."

Ms. Pao (Photo: Kleiner Perkins)

Ellen Pao's gender discrimination case: Still headed for the courtroom. Eventually. Maybe.

When last we checked in with the legal wrangling over Ellen Pao's gender discrimination suit against Kleiner Perkins, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn had rejected the storied VC firm's arguments for arbitration but invited the firm to ask again in a hearing scheduled for today.

But it sounds like Kleiner's legal representatives couldn't quite close the deal. Reuters reports that, rather than ruling, Judge Kahn told Kleiner Perkins he didn't buy their arguments and added that they had the option of appealing if they wanted.

It sounds like the firm has every intention of taking him up on that other. A Kleiner Perkins spokesperson provided the following statement, declaring its intention to appeal the case:

KPCB is disappointed in Judge Kahn’s decision and intends to file an appeal believing it has strong arguments and precedent to move the matter to arbitration.  Ms. Pao, like other partners, signed a variety of standard agreements and it is these agreements with the managing LLCs that govern her claims and  require, among other things, that disputes be resolved through arbitration.  We expect arbitration to be a more efficient and speedier dispute resolution process than trying a matter before a jury years down the line in the San Francisco Superior Court.

It's starting to sound like this case could drag on for years--unless, of course, the warring parties reach an out-of-court settlement.

Ms. Pao (kpcb.com)

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has filed a response to partner Ellen Pao's allegations of gender discrimination and boy howdy, they did not hold back. We've obtained a copy, and here's the meat and potatoes:

"KPCB generally denies each and every material allegation of the Complaint and further denies that Plaintiff has been damaged in the manner alleged, or in any manner or amount."

The firm also "vigorously denies" that it discriminated or retaliated against Ms. Pao, as well as claiming that Ms. Pao never reported anything prior to 2011, and they also deny that she complained in 2007.

The response goes into great detail, refuting many of Ms. Pao's accusations point-by-point:

• When she did complain in late 2011/early 2012, Ms. Pao was already represented by a lawyer, the filing claims.
• KP retained an outside investigator, who interviewed 17 partners, including every then-current KPCB female partner. The independent investigator concluded that her discrimination and retaliation complaints were without merit.
• KPCB denies that Raymond Lane pressured Ms. Pao to marry Mr. Nazre.
• She told Mr. Lane that she was putting the relationship with Mr. Nazre behind her, says the filing.
• That was in late 2011/early 2012, and that was the last any of the senior partners claim to have heard of the incident.
• In regards to the racy book she originally claimed to have received from Mr. Komisar, the response claims--well, it's worth quoting in full: "That book [which the response identifies as The Book of Longing] was reviewed by the New York Times as 'profound'  and having 'exceptional range.'" The document also claims it was purchased as a gift for Ms. Pao by Mr. Komisar's wife, and that Ms. Pao "never returned or objected to the gift in the many years after receiving it.

Regarding her performance reviews:

• In her 2009 self evaluation, she singled out the help she'd received from Komisar and other partners, saying that they are "supportive mentors and advisors." She also "specifically requested Komisar review her performance after the incidents she alleges as harassment," according to the filing.
• Initially, according to the filing, her reviews were encouraging: "Plaintiff's 2009 review encouraged Plaintiff to speak up more effectively and influentially, step out more in a leading role, present more new investment ideas, and take more risks by incubating a high potential venture and owning it--hardly retaliatory input." But it also "encouraged her to focus on her interpersonal and 'EQ' skills to more effectively direct and motivate teams." Then, in 2010, her review "advised Plaintiff that she was too 'territorial', that others did not 'trust her motivations'  and that she had a 'sense of  entitlement rather than earning her position via contribution, expertise, and making her fellow partners successful.'"

Regarding the party Ms. Pao alleges she was not invited to, lest she kill the buzz:

• KPCB denies that Ms. Pao was ever excluded from any company activities based on her gender.
• The dinner Ms. Pao alleges she was not invited to because she was a woman did in fact have female partners in attendance.
• KPCB also denies that it "excluded women from two dinners in San Francisco in 2011 or that any KPCB event was marred or motivated by gender animus or discrimination."

The also firm asserts that Ms. Pao was contractually obligated to seek third-party arbitration, and that by lodging a public suit, she has breached her contract. KPCB also claims that Ms. Pao was failed to competently perform the duties of her job.

KPCB is requesting "the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that Plaintiff take nothing," "That judgment be entered in favor of KPCB on all claims; That KPCB be awarded its attorneys' fees and costs of suit."

Besides the answer to Ms. Pao's complaint, documents filed include a motion to compel arbitration and a motion "to seal records lodged with the court filed by the defendant Kleiner Perkins." There's a hearing set for both issues on July 10.

Today was the deadline for KPCB to file a response, but they could have responded with a request for an extension. Instead, they've chosen to answer Ms. Pao's allegations. Until now, the storied VC firm had been largely silent, except for a strongly worded (though largely detail-free) statement from John Doerr, which called Ms. Pao's allegations false. Now we have a lot more details.

As of last week, Ms. Pao was still working at Kleiner Perkins.

Here's the full document: