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.
I disagreed with JCC’s
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