I think the point is that people (mostly ones who don't really know the details of what actually happened) will just use the court outcome to advance their own pre-existing biases, regardless of what the court says.

Examples:

1) I am biased against Ms. Pao, and she wins: "This just goes to show that women can sue for anything these days, and win millions!"

2) I am biased against Ms. Pao and she loses: "See, women will sue you for discrimination even if you didn't do anything wrong!"

3) I am biased in favor of Ms. Pao and she wins: "See? This is clear proof that the bias against women goes all the way to the top of Silicon Valley!"

4) I am biased in favor of Ms. Pao and she loses: "See, this is proof that businesses can discriminate against women and not suffer any consequences."

Given that, in order for me to take someone's claim seriously, I would want them to pre-commit - before the result is announced - to a "court outcome interpretation." I don't care whether that interpretation is "regardless of what happens, the court outcome is irrelevant" or "I will accept the court ruling as 100% true and correct" - I just want consistency.

The OP didn't use the word "proof". He or she is correct that absence of evidence is indeed evidence (but not proof) of absence.