Skip to main content

Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf

Citation
Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,759 chars
First, the plaintiff must make a prima facie case of discrimination by
showing that (1) she was within a statutorily protected class, (2) she was
discharged by the defendant, (3) she was doing satisfactory work, and (4)
after her discharge, the position remained open and the employer
continued to seek applicants with qualifications similar to the plaintiff. If
the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, it creates a rebuttable
presumption of discrimination.

Second, the burden shifts to the defendant, who must “articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action.”

Third, if the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must produce
sufficient evidence showing that the defendant's alleged nondiscriminatory
reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext.

Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 527 (citations omitted).

The trial court found that Dr. Litvack met the first prong and established a prima

facie case of gender discrimination. The court also found that UW met the second

prong and produced evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for not renewing

Dr. Litvack’s appointment. 5 At issue is step three: whether Dr. Litvack produced

evidence that UW’s asserted nondiscriminatory reasons were merely a pretext. The

trial court found that Dr. Litvack presented no evidence creating a genuine issue of fact

on whether (1) Dr. Futran’s reasons were merely a pretext for a discriminatory purpose

or (2) even though Dr. Futran’s reasons were legitimate, discrimination still was a

substantial factor motivating his decision.

5 Dr. Litvack does not challenge the trial court’s finding on prong two.

-15-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 84592-6-I/16