Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Case Scenario

In this case David Dunlap, a black man, applied for a job as a boilermaker with the Tennessee Valley Authority. Dunlap was referred for an interview by the boilermaker union as well qualified and experienced. The interview was conducted by a selection committee at the facilities location. The interview consisted of technical and non-technical questions and each candidate would receive a score at the end. The committee determined that seventy percent of the score would be the interview process and thirty percent would be the applicant's experience. After Dunlap's interview he felt that it was very subjective and biased against black people. He felt the scoring system was much skewed to favor the white applicants. This paper will discuss the legal issues of the case and the decision to award the disparate treatment claim and reject the disparate (adverse) impact claim. Lastly it will suggest ways that TVA can improve their interview process (York, 2002).

Legal Issues in Case

According to Walsh (2010), David Dunlap brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial discrimination by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The district court found that Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment and disparate impact analyses, and concluded that the TVA's subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black job applicants. The TVA appealed the ruling, arguing that the district court erred in each of these analyses. The issue is not whether the district court reached the best conclusion, but whether the evidence before the Unites States Court of Appeals supports the disparate treatment and disparate impact findings. Dunlap and TVA must now present their case to the Court of Appeals for a final ruling on whether there was disparate treatment and disparate impact and if the award of damages and fees were correct from the lower court (Walsh, 2010).

Plaintiff's Disparate (Adverse) Impact

The disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a facially neutral employment practice falls more harshly on one group than another and that the practice is not justified by business necessity. Dunlap did not present evidence that the practices used in his interview were ever used for other hiring decisions, so no statistical proof could show that a protected group was adversely impacted. Dunlap's expert, William Anthony, testified about the lack of standards during Dunlap's interview ...