Dunlap V. Tennessee Valley Authority

Assignment #2 - Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority

1. What is the legal issue in this case? David Dunlap a previous applicant and an interviewee for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) alleged a Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964 race discrimination lawsuit against the organization. Mr. Dunlap has sought employment with TVA since the 1970s; he has never been offered a job or an interview. After applying for one of the numerous positions within TVA, Mr. Dunlap finally received an interview but he was not in the top ten out of twenty one potential candidates. Based upon his years of experience and the training he has received from TVA, Mr. Dunlap was once again rejected by TVA selection committee. After years of seeking employment Mr. Dunlap, who is an African American, accuses the company of disparate treatment and disparate impact concluding TVA's subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against him and other black applicants (Wash, 2010). TVA is appealing the decision of district court to the U. S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit on the grounds that disparate treatment and impact is erroneous.

2. Explain why the plaintiff's disparate (adverse) impact claim fail? In order to win the case based on disparate impact, the plaintiff must establish prima face. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Courts in the ruling on disparate impact. The court did acknowledge the interview process had been manipulated but Mr. Dunlap failed to provide supporting statistical data to this claim. The disparate theory must be applied in this case which 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. Under this theory, proof of discriminatory intent is not required. A prima face case is established when: (1) the plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice to be challenged; and (2) through relevant statistical analysis proves that the challenged practice has an adverse impact on a protected group. Johnson v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Servs., 30 F.3d 45, 48 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Scales v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 925 F.2d 901, 907-08 (6th Cir. 1991)). The parties disagree about which employment practice Dunlap presented for review before the district court; namely, whether it was the interview process used by the entire TVA over a number of years, or simply the interview process that was used for the Cumberland facility boilermaker positions in early 2000 (Liberty & Whitmore, 2008).

3. Explain why the plaintiff's disparate treatment claim succeed? Dunlap claim of disparate treatment was successful because he had demonstrated that TVA treated some applicants less favorable than others because of their race, sex, religion or national origin. The evidence presented in this case of the manipulation of the scoring sheets. Some of the sheets had been altered and it could be clearly seen by the court. The scores had been manipulated to favor one candidate over another.