[huu]

I think the point of the trial is to determine if what happened to Pao is "because she's a woman". If there's enough evidence for that claim, then there's a legal basis for recourse.

If we could sweep any exclusionary behavior under the rug of "just office politics", there'd be no need for anti-discrimination laws in the first place.

[Potando]

It's sad that discrimination is fully acceptable and even encouraged by most workplaces, as long as it doesn't touch on any of the hot reasons - sex, race, religion = not OK. Nationality, personality, friends with boss = OK. I'd say personality and religion are both pretty similar in how difficult they are to change. So surely they should be treated similarly. The rules are just arbitrary. It would be OK if Pao was a man and "his" boss just didn't like him being a buzzkill at a party? Doesn't sound OK to me.