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
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/845926.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
- Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf
Full Text
1,738 charsfor speaking down to others and refusing to accept feedback. There is no indication that Dr. Davis received any criticism. The trial court recognized that Dr. Litvack produced evidence that other doctors were treated differently: Dr. Litvack has produced some evidence that Dr. Davis exhibited some of the same behaviors as Dr. Litvack—communication issues and delinquent encounter closures—and that he was not accepting or welcoming of feedback. Dr. Litvack also produced some evidence that Drs. Weaver and Houlton had documentation issues similar to, but not the same as, Dr. -19- For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 84592-6-I/20 Litvack’s. Dr. Litvack produce evidence that Drs. Barber and Weymuller did not make their productivity targets. But the court determined this evidence insufficient because the comparators were permanent professors and Dr. Litvack was an acting professor subject to yearly renewal: It is undisputed, however, that these employees were in permanent, not acting, positions. Dr. Davis was an associate professor, Dr. Houlton was an assistant professor, and Dr. Weaver was a professor. Dr. Barber was an assistant professor and is female. Dr. Weymuller was a full professor. Because Dr. Litvack was an acting professor subject to yearly renewal, her proposed comparables are not employees in the same circumstances. The trial court erred in dismissing Dr. Litvack’s comparators. The test for comparators is whether they are “similarly situated” to the plaintiff and “doing substantially the same work” as the plaintiff. Johnson, 80 Wn. App. at 227; Ellington, 18 Wn. App. at 54. In determining pretext comparators, it is not dispositive that acting