Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority Research Paper

Dunlap v. Tennessee vale Authority - Research Paper ExampleDunlap felt that the system of scoring was extremely skewed and in favor of white candidates. This countersign investigates the legal issues in the episode and the decision to credit the claim of desperate treatment and neglect the disparate push claim. Similarly, the discussion will suggest different ways in which Tennessee Valley authority can improve their process of interview. Discussion Legal issues They include David Dunlap, who believes that the process of interviewing in the TVA is discriminating and violates the Title seven of the 1964 Civil Right Act. David feels that he suffered prejudice under both disparate treatment and impact by the interview, which was increasingly subjective. Dunlap believes that the option criteria favored white people. The committee evaluated all the applicants during the interview, but Dunlap felt that the evaluation process lacked merit and had limited rhyme. For instance, he scored lo w mark on a safety question than his colleague who has had more than two accidents in a span of 11 years, and for Dunlap, he had no accident, (Markusen, 2003). The system of evaluation itself can current of air to various legal issues, for instance, the Tennessee Valley Authoritys subjective hiring and evaluation process allowed racial discrimination against Black applicants such as Dunlap. The Court of speak to verified the claim of disparate treatment, reversed the claim of disparate adverse and verified the award of the district court of damages and fees to David. Why the disparate impact claim failed The theory of disparate claim demands the complainant to show that a seemingly impartial employment practice influences one team increasingly harshly than the other and that the practice of employment is unjustified by business requirements. Under the article of belief, discriminatory testimony intent is non necessary. Even though, the district court construed that Tennessee Valley Authority process of interviewing was influenced to exclude black applicants, the Appeals Court objected, citing inadequate statistical evidence that a protected team was negatively affected, therefore, creating a prima Facie argument. Dunlap could not support his case by just challenging the employed process in his interview therefore, his case failed. Success of disparate treatment argument The doctrine of disparate treatment demands a plaintiff to show that the employer has favored some people against others based on their race, origin or cultural background. It also requires the plaintiff create a prima Facie condition of racial bias, the employer to demonstrate a number of legitimate nonbiased reasons for his actions and the plaintiff to show some evidence that the articulated boot was pre-textual. In this theory, a discriminatory check is crucial. Nevertheless, in different circumstances it may be concluded from the sole disparities in treatment. Discriminatory motive proof may be gathered from the employers false explanation for the actions. To refute a prima Facie argument, a defendant should show a legal nonbiased reason for rejection of plaintiff. In Dunlaps case, Tennessee Valley Authority demonstrated the selection medium employed during the interview of Dunlap, and indicated that Dunlaps interview score did not put his last marks into the best ten. The challenge then turned back to Dunlap to show that the process of selection was pretext for biasness. The district court