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
1,723 charsdiversity committee which focused on the gender gap and compensation and the underrepresentation of women. About two months later, Dr. Futran yelled and screamed at Dr. Litvack during a performance review. That was also the first time Dr. Litvack was told she had productivity issues. Soon after, Dr. Futran recommended, against a majority vote, that Dr. Litvack’s appointment not be renewed finding no path for her to become an assistant professor “and further activity will not change this.” The court did not consider Dr. Litvack’s temporal evidence for her discrimination claim because the court believed her gender was static throughout her employment. -21- For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 84592-6-I/22 Plaintiff’s temporal evidence can be relevant only to her retaliation claim because her gender was a static factor throughout her employment, and it is undisputed that Dr. Futran acted in support of Dr. Litvack for two years immediately preceding his decision to not renew her acting appointment. .... At oral argument, Dr. Litvack pointed out [November 2018 events] relative to her “protected activities” is circumstantial evidence that Dr. Futran secretly solicited these criticisms. While a jury could possibly find this to be true for her retaliation claim, this evidence is not relevant to her claim of gender discrimination because her gender remained the same from Dr. Futran’s hiring of her, his support and commendation of her, through his non-renewal decision. The trial court erred. In Mikkelsen, for example, Mikkelsen and her male manager worked well together at first to the extent that he would have Mikkelsen act as acting manager when