Prima Facie Case Of Discrimination: Film Analysis

The Judicial Council of California (JCC) explanation for its actions is false and is a pretext for discrimination. There are numerous inconsistencies and conflicting documentary evidence that I believe render their explanation as unreliable. I am urging EEOC to move forward with the investigation of my charge. I strongly believe now more than ever that I am being discriminating upon.

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on sex, race, or national origin, I, the Claimant must establish that (1) belongs to a protected class; (2) was qualified for and performing my job satisfactorily; (3) suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside of my protected class were treated more favorably.
JCC stated that I cannot establish the third and fourth elements of prima facie case of discrimination because I cannot show that I suffered an adverse employment action or that similarly situated individuals outside my protected class were treated more favorably.
I disagreed with JCC’s
position.

Let’s start with identification of these individuals that I believe are outside of my protected class that are being treated favorably. As I understand, the definition of "similarly situated" is as follows: a. Was subject to the same standards b. Dealt with the same supervisor c. Engaged in similar conduct without differentiating or mitigating circumstances

If the basis of similarly situated above is agreed upon, then Ron Adkins and Juanita Pivoda would be employees who are similarly situated. (a) Both are subject to the same standards because both are supporting the different modules for Phoenix HR/PY under the COE unit and are considered “lead” of some co-workers. (b) Both report to the same supervisor; in this case Tiffany Nauertz. (3) Lastly, both are engage in similar conduct (Sr. Business System Analyst).

Please see the Org. Chart provided by JCC with Ron, Juanita and I reporting directly to Tiffany. To solidify that Akins and Pivoda are similarly situated employee, I would recommend the requisition of their Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ) that they wrote as part of the requirement gathering from Fox and Lawson who conducted the job classification study. Attached is my PDQ (Exhibit 1A). Originally, I did not pointed out Ms. Pivoda as similarly situated individual because the attorney I consulted suggested that I file an “Equal Pay” charge to ensure a higher chance of winning and within a short time frame. However, I discovered that advice was shortsighted and cause me not to provide direct evidence to establish prima facie.

I disagreed with JCC position that I "cannot identify any similarly situated individual -employees hired within TCAS at the same time to the same position -who were treated more favorably.
If we are to use the bases of "same time to the same position" than Ms. Pivoda will be the identified individual that meet this criteria. I feel that she was favorably treated with the promotion from a Pay & Benefit Specialist into a Senior Court Services Analyst. First she did not meet the minimum qualification to be a Senior Court Services Analyst (Sr. CSA).

Using JCC Exhibit Q, the Job Description for Senior Court Services Analyst provided that the minimum qualification are as follows:
a. Equivalent to possession of BA degree; AND 3 years of professional analytical or managerial experience in court, gov't or other org. operations; including 1 year of lead experience. Or additional directly related experience may be substituted for the education on a year-for-year basis. Possession of a directly related postgraduate degree or certification from the Institute for Court Management (ICM) may be substituted for one of the three years of required
experience. b. 1 year as Court Services Analyst with judicial branch. Ms. Pivoda does not have a BA degree and 3 years of analytical experience. Nor does she has a certificate from ICM. Lastly, she was not a Court Services Analyst with judicial branch prior to her promotion. At the time she applied for the Sr. CSA position as an internal candidate, her title was Pay and Benefit Specialist II as seen on the “Salary History Since Hire” report provided on page 47 of 119. Furthermore she was hired on 10/23/2006 and didn’t have the 3 years analytical experience neither. Ms. Pivoda is a “white” female, whom is my similarly situated co-worker, was favorably promoted with disregard to the minimum qualifications. I know for a fact that another internal candidate Pineda (married name and no longer employed with JCC), who is “black, female” with a bachelor degree was told she didn’t meet the minimum qualification and was denied the opportunity to submit her application for this position.