Margolis

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff Sue Margolis appeals the district court’s summary judgment in favor of her former employer Tektronix, Inc., in her action alleging sex discrimination under federal and state law. We reverse and remand.

The parties are familiar with the underlying facts, so we proceed to the analysis. Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, prohibits an employer from discriminating against someone because of that person’s gender. The Oregon state law counterpart, ORS § 659.030(l)(a)-(b), can be analyzed together with the federal claim. See Heller v. EBB Auto Co., 8 F.3d 1433 , 1437 n. 2 (9th Cir.1993); Winnett v. City of Portland, 118 Or.App. 437, 442 , 847 P.2d 902 (1993). A claim of disparate treatment under Title VII requires direct or circumstantial proof of discriminatory motive. See Washington v. Garrett, 10 F.3d 1421, 1431-32 (9th Cir. 1993). In order to prevail in such a case, a plaintiff must first establish a prime facie case of discrimination. The burden of production then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment decision. The plaintiff is then afforded an opportunity to demonstrate that the employer’s…