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

Full Text

1,755 chars

inference is fully recognized, employers could be discouraged from hiring the very persons the
Legislature intended the Law Against Discrimination to protect, fearful that doing so would make them
more vulnerable, rather than less, to legal claims of unlawful discriminatory animus if legitimate business
reasons later required discharging such a person.” Hill, 144 Wn.2d at 190.
10 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., supra, at 18 min., 35 sec.

-24-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 84592-6-I/25

under such circumstances, the same actor inference makes little sense particularly as

applied to an entity such as UW where it would be nearly impossible to not hire women

in general. 11 We agree.

While the same actor inference is strong, it is not dispositive when the employee

provides an answer to the question posed in Hill as Dr. Litvack did here. An employer is

not entitled to summary judgment when the strength of the evidence overcomes the

inference.

The trial court erred in applying the same actor inference without considering Dr.

Litvack’s explanation and weighing the evidence against the inference accordingly.

Citing Mikkelsen, Dr. Litvack argues that where, as here, “there are reasonable

but competing inferences of both discrimination and nondiscrimination, it is the jury’s

task to choose between such inferences,—not the court’s.” 189 Wn.2d at 536 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Dr. Litvack contends that she provided sufficient evidence to

support a reasonable inference of discrimination. We agree.

Dr. Litvack may rely on circumstantial, indirect, and inferential evidence and need

not disprove each of UW’s reasons for nonrenewal. Dr. Litvack need not prove her