Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority

The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of color, as well as national origin, sex, religion. This law applies to any employers with 15 or more employees including the local state, government, employment agencies, labor organizations and federal government jobs. David Dunlap a fifty-two black male who worked as a boil maker for twenty years has perform numerous of jobs for Tennessee Valley Authority and decided to interview for one of the ten position that TVA had available at the Cumberland facility.

The district court found that Dunlap was subject to discrimination under both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. After analyzing both the disparate impact and the disparate treatment the disparate impact claim had failed due to the lack of evidence that Dunlap could provide to support his case, but he had enough evidence from the interview process to prove that the disparate treatment theory would help him to win his case against Tennessee Valley Authority. Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim fail?

“The disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a facially neutral employment practice falls more harshly on one group than another and practice is not justified by business necessity. ” With this “claim the plaintiffs most identify a specific employment practice to be challenged also through relevant statistical analysis proves that the challenged practice has an adverse on the protected group. ” With the decision to hire only a certain amount of people to join the Tennessee Valley Authority Dunlap figured that he had a great chance of being a candidate due to the years that he have invested with the company.

“Dunlap did not present evidence that the practice can show that a protected group was adversely impacted. ” Since he could not prove his claim by challenging the process used in his own interview the courts decided that the disparate impact claim would not be enough sufficient evidence to use against Tennessee Valley Authority. Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim succeed? Dunlap succeeded with disparate treatment because he had efficient evidence (examples) to show the district court. The examples that he shared showed how he was treated within the interview process.

Within the disparate treatment claim the plaintiff must be able to, “establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscrimatory reason for its actions; and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. ” One of the examples that were used was that Dunlap received a 3. 7 for reporting missing some days off, but two other candidates received a 4. 2 and 5. 5 when they shouldn’t have received a better score than him. They also gave Dunlap a 4 on his safety record, even though he had a perfect score.

Two of the candidates had two accidents in eleven years and they both received higher scores than Dunlap. He also talked about how he ranked 14 and they were split into three groups outstanding, qualified and well- qualified. The ten candidates were all chosen to have one of the positions. There were also emails to support some of the evidence Dunlap had. I think being able to prove the three requirements was why the plaintiff was successful. He was able to us examples that really supported him; the emails also helped him to be successful.

The emails showed proof of discrimination amongst all candidates. What should the TVA have done differently with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for these jobs? Due to this company being one of the hardest companies to get employed with, the Human Resource team should have first met up with each other to come up with characteristics that they would want each candidate to display to help the company be more of an asset our society. Secondly, I think that the Tennessee Valley Authority should have really sat down and analyze each candidate that was applying for the ten positions.

With this company only have a select ten positions available the hiring managers should have been very specific with the candidates that should be chosen. They should have compared and contrasts the advantages and disadvantages of each candidate upon calling them to set up an interview. They should have taken some time to look at each application to cross out the ones that did not meet the characteristic that were initially brought about. Race should not have ever been a factor and seeking candidates to fill all ten open positions.

Regardless of anyone’s race the job still has to be completed. Everyone should have been given a fair chance for any position available. They could have also given everyone a trial period to let their performance speak for itself. I think that each candidate should have been given a fair opportunity to be rewarded with a job with Tennessee Valley Authority. So many companies try to use and abuse you as long as you will let them; Dunlap felt that he had an equal chance to get hired on with this company in which he had been working as temp for a long period of time.

In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading the Dunlap vs. Tennessee Valley Authority legal case. This case shows me that sometimes the things that you want may not be the things that you really want to deal with. It also display the courageous to stand up for what is right. Although Dunlap knew that he had a great chance of being hired through Tennessee Valley Authority when he did not receive the position he knew that something had to be wrong. We as people do not think that your race plays a major part in receiving a job and although it is not right sometimes it does.

Dunlap did a great job sharing the examples of the things that happen to him during the interview selection process. Even though the things that went on throughout the interview process were not right, he was able to show them that they were wrong. I am glad that he did not get discourage about pursuing the issue of being discriminated against. No matter what kind of case it may be the plaintiffs always have the burden of proof, which means it is up to the plaintiff to prove their case. Dunlap did just that!