After Ellen Pao, UNLV, Duke LaCrosse, and countless false police reports (resulting in legal action) about discrimination I'm waiting for evidence.
I am familiar with the case, maybe even more than you are, and I can't draw any conclusions from it as to who was right here. I'm American and I've actually served on juries twice and I can tell you that in a case like this when juries have no idea who is telling the truth, they'll opt for the least harm verdict, which means that ruling against Ellen Pao is the safest course of action because it avoids ruling against defendants who may actually be innocent. People get found innocent of murder because there's nothing more than circumstantial evidence in the case and juries won't always convict just on that. Both Ellen and the defendants provided reasonable, believable versions of what happened. The only conclusion I can come to is that Ellen didn't prove her case sufficiently for whatever reason and it shows just how difficult it is to win workplace lawsuits. Some years ago we had a lawyer who actually did this kind of work post about them and he told us that his first advice to all prospective clients was to drop the matter and get on with their lives if they possibly could because most workplace discrimination cases are losses for the plaintiffs.