Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 845926.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,755 chars

gender was the sole factor behind the nonrenewal. Rather, Dr. Litvack need only

provide sufficient evidence from which a jury could find that gender significantly

motivated Dr. Futran’s decision. She has met that burden.

11 Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral arg., supra, at 19 min., 15 sec.

-25-
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 84592-6-I/26

Dr. Litvack stated that following her assertiveness and outspoken opposition to

gender bias in the Department, she met with Dr. Futran for a performance review during

which he was angry, yelled at her, cut her off, and behaved in a difficult and shocking

manner. The same day as the meeting and soon after, Dr. Futran received and

solicited feedback about Dr. Litvack from male colleagues who all expressed doubts as

to her medical judgement. Then, Dr. Futran went against a majority vote and

recommended against renewal.

The fact that Dr. Futran supported Dr. Litvack at certain times does not preclude

the possibility that his decision was significantly motivated by discrimination against Dr.

Litvack as a woman and a woman who spoke out and refused to apologize. Dr. Futran

considered Dr. Litvack’s conduct in his decision-making, including her willingness or

ability to apologize and begin necessary changes. But Dr. Litvack was told only of

performance issues in November and Dr. Futran’s nonrenewal recommendation

occurred in December. Dr. Litvack had very little time to commence changes or adjust

her performance according to feedback as Dr. Futran wished. Dr. Futran also said that

further activity would not change his determination that based on Dr. Litvack’s

performance issues there was no path for her to become a permanent professor.