Bodaghi Vs. Department Case Study

The principle of applicable laws in mere case of Bodaghi vs. Department is “discrimination intent” or “intentional discrimination”. Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, any discriminatory act on part of the employer on the basis of race, religion, color, gender or country of origin equals a violation of the law. This law protects the rights of the disparate as well as the disadvantaged and prohibits employers from discriminating against any employee or singling out any employee based on their association with a protected group. The violation of these rights remand the employee to present a prima facie case for the proof of intentional discriminatory behavior on employer’s part. The plaintiff is required to provide a proof of
Since then, Bodaghi had been promoted 4 times, until in 1992 when he was reallocated at the position of Administrator I which increased his grade from 87 to 95. This meant a big raise and much more authority to Bodaghi. He was told by personal analyst of the Department that for the position, if there are less than 4 applicants, the incumbent will be given the job without any tests or examinations. However, in 1993, Vezzani issued a notice for applications to the position and encouraged employees to apply even if they did not satisfy the criteria for the job. Moreover, when Bodaghi approached Vezzani with his concerns about his position, Vezzani insisted that he try to do his very best in the examination and beat the other contenders. Although only 3 applicant applied for the position, the examinations were still held and an extensive test was also taken which was against the previous policy of the Department. The interview with the panel consisted of Vezzani along with two members from his “good guy club” (as testified by one of the employees), among the total 4 members. At the end, the panel decided to award the position to DeVore, an applicant from Greeley while Bodaghi was given a notification letter for his termination in the following April to which he switched his position to another division. He also filed a complaint against the Department in time for a prima facie to be presented to the court for proving intentional discrimination.
Holding of the Court
The court reversed the intermediate court's judgment and reinstated the administrative law judge's decision that respondent was terminated for racial reasons. The intermediate court erred by rejecting the permissive inference of intentional discrimination as insufficient where the fact finder found the proffered reasons to be a pretext