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
1,733 charslegitimate reasons. Just because evidence may be used to support a retaliation claim does not mean it cannot also be used to support a discrimination claim arising from the same circumstances. For these reasons, the trial court should have considered any relevant and admissible evidence regardless of its temporal nature in determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext or whether discrimination was a substantial factor in the nonrenewal decision. 8 4 Dr. Litvack argues the trial court erred in ruling that UW was entitled to the “same actor inference” which is a strong inference that when an employee is hired and fired by 7 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., Litvack v. Univ. of Wash., No. 84592-6-I (Nov. 14, 2023), at 18 min., 35 sec., https://tvw.org/video/division-1-court-of-appeals-2023111165/. 8 UW argues that Dr. Litvack should be precluded from relying on temporal evidence under collateral estoppel because the jury in the retaliation claim trial determined whether Dr. Litvack proved “a substantial factor in the decision to non-renew her employment was Dr. Litvack’s opposing what she reasonably believed to be discrimination.” Collateral estoppel prevents relitigating a particular issue in a later proceeding involving the same parties even though the later proceeding involves a different claim or cause of action. 14A DOUGLAS J. ENDE, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: CIVIL PROCEDURE § 35:32 (3d ed. 2018). The issue before us is whether summary judgment was proper on the WLAD discrimination claim. Dr. Litvack’s WLAD discrimination claim is not being relitigated nor is this a later proceeding where Dr. Litvack is alleging discrimination under a different claim or cause of action.