Dunlap V Tennessee Valley Authority

1. What were the legal issues in this case? According to Stewart (2001),

The American workplace is rapidly becoming multicultural and employers must ensure that selection procedures are free from unfair bias that may negatively affect the increasing number of minorities and women because it's the law. It is therefore important to develop an understanding of the factors contributing to unfair employment decisions. (pg.260)

In the case of Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority the legal issue is whether David Dunlap, a boil maker, experienced racial discrimination under disparate treatment and disparate (adverse) impact when interviewing for a boilermaker position with Tennessee Valley Authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Hellreigel (2010) states,

Disparate treatment is differing treatment of individuals, where the difference are based on the individuals' race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability and disparate (adverse) impact is a condition in which employment practices are seemingly neutral yet disproportionately exclude a protected group from employment opportunities. (pg. 74-75)

Dunlap claims that the interviewing and scoring process with the Tennessee Valley Authority is racially bias towards black applicant's and is geared to give white applicants a higher scoring advantage over blacks.

2. Explain why the plaintiff's disparate (adverse) impact claim failed.

Hellreigel (2010) states that,

An important distinction between disparate treatment and disparate impact is the role of the employer's intent. In other words, the company's employment practices lack obvious discriminatory content, but they affect one group differently than others. (pg. 74-75)

In the case of Dunlap v Tennessee valley Authority, Dunlap had to prove that the intent of the TVA was to intently discriminate or adversely impact against him because of his race thus denying him employment with the TVA. In order to prove this Dunlap need to satisfy the four-fifths rule. Hellreigel (2010) states, "the four-fifths rule finds evidence of discrimination if the hiring rate for a minority group is less than four-fifths the hiring rate for the majority group (pg. 75)". Dunlap was unsuccessful in proving his claim because the court ruled

Dunlap did not present evidence that the practices used in his interview were ever used for other hiring decisions, so no statistical proof can show that a protected group was adversely impacted. (pg. 210)