That article isn't trying to remain impartial at all.
By about half way down they gave up all pretence and started arguing that Pao's case was valid/accurate even if the jury disagreed.
You'd almost think the author forgot she actually lost. 12 people decided she had no case, what would be enough for this author? 20? 50? I doubt even that would do it, they've pre-decided what actually occurred.
By about half way down they gave up all pretence and started arguing that Pao's case was valid/accurate even if the jury disagreed.
You'd almost think the author forgot she actually lost. 12 people decided she had no case, what would be enough for this author? 20? 50? I doubt even that would do it, they've pre-decided what actually occurred.