What is the evidence supporting a finding that a compliance officer discriminated against a certified bilingual deputy probation officer because of her race or ethnic origin?

Whatever the compliance officer's views may have been, there is a wealth of evidence documenting the need for bilingual services, the loss of certified bilingual personnel from positions of certified need which would result from non-exempt reductions, the ethnicity-neutral means by which certification was achieved solely on the basis of language proficiency, the presence of essential non-Spanish-speaking bilingual specialists among those exempted and the number of non-Hispanic bilingual specialists exempted. There is no evidence that any individual was denied certification on the basis of race or ethnic origin. Moreover, it is undisputed that all certified bilingual deputy probation officers were exempted. Accordingly, there is ample evidence to support the trial court's finding that the exemptions were not prompted by an intent to discriminate, an essential requirement under the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution. (Washington v. Davis (1976) 426 U.S. 229, 239, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 2047, 48 L.Ed.2d 597.)