Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority



[Name of the Course]

Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority

Introduction

The under discussion is a case of Dunlop who claimed discrimination in selection criteria for an employment opportunity in Tennessee Valley Authority. Dunlop is an African American and has an experience of twenty years as a boilermaker. He applied many times in TVA for the employment but he could not get a job. He could not qualify the interview as he thought the selection in the interview was not transparent.

He alleged the employer for treating him discriminately. A bench trial discovered that in the selection criteria of the TVA, blacks were excluded even if they were far better than the whites. In return, district court orders for compensation of Dunlop's expenses. The defendant TVA then appealed claiming that court's decisions about disparate treatment and disparate impact were totally wrong.

What were the legal issues in this case?

The case filed by Dunlop to claim disparate impact and disparate treatment had many legal issues. The case falls under title VII which make sit narrow in legal framework. The Federal Rule of Civil Procedures states that a district court cannot take its decision back unless it is proved flawed by the reviewing court. TVA will have to provide evidence that the district court's affirmation of claim made by Dunlop is totally wrong (Richardson, 2007).

The title VII fully opposes discrimination against employees in any organization. Dunlop claimed the discrimination which has to be proved through two theories: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Dunlop has to provide the evidences for both the theories to prove that TVA has discriminated him.

For disparate impact, Dunlop must base his facts to challenge a specific employment practice which causes discrimination. In case he succeeds, TVA will show that practice challenged is a business necessity.

For disparate treatment, Dunlop has to provide that he was treated discriminately in terms of sex, religion and race and despite being qualified for the job, the whites were preferred(Landy,2005).

Explain why the plaintiff's disparate (adverse) impact claim fails?

According to the disparate impact theory, a plaintiff is required to set up a fact that an adverse impact has taken place in the selection criteria of the job. He also has to identify a particular employment practice for the disparate impact on protected group. The parties could not agree about the particular employment practice Dunlop challenged before the District Court. Dunlop could not identify whether it was the interview procedure of TVA, generally used in all cases or just in the case of Cumberland facility. But, it could not be proved that the practice was done in the case of Cumberland hiring. Moreover, Dunlop's expert reported that the employer's policies and procedure implemented in case of Dunlop lacked in standards. Dunlop failed to present and proof that such practices used in his interview were ever used for other hiring decisions. In this way, it was clear that no other group was negatively influenced by that particular ...