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
1,779 charshe was away from the office. 189 Wn.2d at 523. But the relationship deteriorated because of the manager’s unilateral management style and his treatment of Mikkelsen such as talking over her and calling her untrustworthy in meetings. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 522. The situation escalated to the point that Mikkelsen suggested to the board president that they conduct an anonymous survey to see if other employees had similar issues. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 524. The manager found out about the survey and promptly fired Mikkelsen. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 524. The manager’s reasons for termination were that Mikkelsen disrespected him regularly, made unreasonable requests, and kept information about billing from him. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 524. Our Supreme Court considered all the evidence together and determined that Mikkelsen presented “a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the breakdown in communication between Mikkelsen and Ward occurred because she is a woman.” Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 524. Thus, the court reversed summary judgment for the -22- For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/. No. 84592-6-I/23 employer because a reasonable jury could believe the manager was motivated by gender bias or they could believe the manager’s legitimate reasons. Mikkelsen, 189 Wn.2d at 524. Like Mikkelsen, it is possible that Dr. Futran could support Dr. Litvack initially and still be substantially motivated by discrimination in making his decision about nonrenewal. Dr. Litvack argues she was discriminated against not only because she is a woman but because she is a woman who refused to stay quiet. 7 Thus, a reasonable jury could believe Dr. Futran was motivated by gender bias or they could believe his