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

1,723 chars
diversity 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