Dunlap V. Tennessee Valley Authority Essay

What were the legal issues in this case? In the case of Dunlap VS Tennessee valley Authority, the legal issue that was presented was disagreement, different interference and disparate impact. According to the EEOC, accelerate discrimination involves treating individual (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personal characteristics associated with race (such as haircloth texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color discrimination involves treating approximately adept unfavorably because of skin color complexion.The Title VII of the Civil Rights be active of 1964 protects bestowers from discrimination, and when it comes to the case, discrimination was seen in many ways. For starters, when it came to the querying process, there were 5 white officials and 1 black which showed that the room was non balance. Next, when it came to the gain, he received lower dozens than the whites. The next issue that showed discri mination was when it came to the attendance record of the workers.Two of the workers who were Caucasian, had the alike attendance as Dunlap, and they received a better ranking. Also, Dunlap had a consummate safety record and received a score of a 4 while a white applicant who was at the job for eleven, had 2 accidents within those years and received a score of 6. Dunlap was not the further African American to discombobulate problems with TVA when it came to discrimination as well. The suit that was brought against TVA was for discrimination under disparate impact and treatment.Disparate impact theory requires the complainant to demonstrate that the facility falls harshly on one company than some other disparate treatment requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some race badly because of the race, age, gender or any other discrimination detailor (Walsh, 2010). The district costroom found many filings on with the position that Dunlap had been sub jected to discrimination under both disparate treatment, concluding that TVAs natural hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants (Walsh, 2010).According to the text subjective criteria is assessing candidates that are not uniform and clearly specified, and when it came to Dunlap and the facts that were presented subjective hiring was conducted. The Appeals court of justice support the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district courts award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap (Walsh, 2010) Explain wherefore the plaintiffs disparate (adverse) impact claim fail? The background that disparate impact failed is because when it comes discriminatory actions in this theory, proof is not required.The disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an apparently soggy habit perpetrate affects one group more harshly than another and that the practice is not justified by business nece ssity. A stellar(prenominal) face case is established when the plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice to be take exceptiond and through relevant statistical analysis proves that the challenged practice has an adverse impact on a protected group. When it comes to the case, discrimination was seen, nevertheless never affects more than one class.Glass ceiling in the sustain is referred to artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that retard qualified individuals from advancing in there organization to upper management. The background that glass ceiling is seen is because when it comes to the interviewing process, there was only 1 black interviewer. thus when it came to the recruits, even if there work effort was poor and they were white, there oodles was higher than the African Americans. But because discrimination is a fact that is unprofitable and void in this theory and because discrimination doesnt matter, thats wherefore it failed. Th e only criteria Mr.Dunlap could prove was that the interview process had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates, and how the scoring was different for blacks and whites. So in the essence in this theory, it was a challenge to prove it because Dunlap only had his interview Explain why the plaintiffs disparate treatment claim succeed? The primer coat disparate treatment was successful was because it requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The first fact was the manipulating of the score.In this case, Dunlap was able to prove that the hyaloplasm process was pretext for discrimination. afterward(prenominal) the district court did some investigation, they found that some of sheets had been changed more than 70 times, and there was no reason what so ever for the change. Dunlap said the matrix score was manipulated to keep him out of the top t en applicants. Another reason it was a success was because William Parchman, an African-American with thirty years of experience as a boilermaker that was also rejected. He played a vital enjoyment in the suit because of the problems he encountered to become employed with TVA. He provided affirmation hat he had a history of macrocosm rejected for jobs and promotions at the company. He also stated that the only reason got the boilermaker position was after he filed a complaint with the EEOC. Other facts that showed discrimination was evidence forward the district court when it came to the weight given to the interview and how it was changed, questions in the interview was not evaluated objectively, and the scores were altered to produce a racially aslope result. Bottom line is that when it comes to discrimination, it was proven in several ways, and the district court committed no error in finding disparate treatment.The court saw how discrimination was seen from different people , and Dunlap was not the only worker that matte that way. What should the TVA scram done otherwise with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for these jobs? When it comes to interviewing candidates, whats should of been done differently is looking at the applicants work history thoroughly. The first thing that should have been looked at first is education. When workers have education, they are better qualified because they go forth know how to think outside if the box. If an applicant didnt have the education, then TVP sould look at experience as well as work performance.When looking at experience, factors that shouldbe viewed are supervisory experience along with performance and safety in the workplace. In the interviewing process, things that could have been different is interviewing with one interviewer at a time. Also the questions could have been different for each interviewer so that everyone was not following the same pattern. All of the scores would be the sam e, provided the questions would be different and give the best candidates for the job. Another thing that could have been different is having a manager present in the room to pushover and check the papers when the interview is finish.By a manager being there to verifying the score, there is not chance that manipulating could happen with the scoring. If this typeface of approach would have been used, the selecting process would have been different because no interviewer or candidate would have the same response. But the scores would show the factual qualified applicants, and they would deserve the promotion. Nothing would be bias and scores could not be altered.