Dunlap Vs. Tennessee Valley Authority

Dunlap vs. Tennessee Valley Authority

In the following case, David Dunlap, plaintiff, "brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging racial discrimination by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)" (Walsh, p. 209). TVA was in the process of filling ten positions with its organization, which Dunlap was considered an applicant. Of the ten positions available, twenty-one applicant's, including Dunlap, was called in for interviews. Dunlap is a fifty-two-year-old African-American male with twenty years experience as a boilermaker. Of those twenty years, Dunlap has fifteen years as a boilermaker foreman responsible for a crew of boilermakers. For several years Dunlap has tried numerous times to establish employment with TVA but has never been offered a job or interview for that matter. However, during Dunlap's boilermaker experience he has been with TVA facilities throughout Tennessee through contract or temporary work with his union. Of the newly current positions that TVA has available, Dunlap has submitted his resume, which included his work with TVA facilities, his training through TVA's own program, supervisory experience, and 27,000 hours of experience in the field. The twenty-one applicant's were called for the interview, and were referred by his boilermaker union as qualified for the job. The jobs that were available were in the Cumberland facility and the selecting members consisted of five white officials, and one black official. The questions for the interviewees consisted of a combination of boilermaker experience and non-technical questions. The boilermaker questions were developed by the committee members and the non-technical questions were developed by other management and human resources personnel. The interviewer's decided before the interview process that the interview would be based on seventy percent of the final score and that the technical expertise would account for thirty percent.

What were the legal issues in this case?

In the above case, Dunlap is filing suit alleging racial discrimination under disparate treatment and disparate impact. "Disparate treatment is intentional unequal treatment based on protected class characteristics that results in the limitation or denial of employment opportunity" (Walsh, p. 64). Disparate impact "is the disproportionate limitation or denial of employment opportunity for some protected class group that results from the use of a "neutral" requirement or practice not job-related and consistent with business necessity" (Walsh, p. 65).

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

In order to file suit for disparate impact the plaintiff must prove that "facially neutral employment practice falls more harshly on one group than another and that the practice is not justified by business necessity" (Walsh, p. 210). Dunlap's disparate impact claim failed because Dunlap failed to provide proof that the interview practices was ever used on other