Dunlap V. Tennessee Valley Authority

1. What were the legal yields in this instance? The U. S. dally of Appeals for the Sixth roundab proscribed was to determine if the complainant, David Dunlap Dunlap, had met the burden of consequence that the Tennessee vale permit (TVA) was liable chthonic Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by tendencyionally astute against him under twain different preserve and different interposition analyses and whether the TVA woo to the District Court erred in each of these analyses could be legally run to reverse their decision FindLaw, 2011).David Dunlap brought suit under Title VII, alleging racial variety by the TVA. The territorial dominion court undercoat that Dunlap had been subjected to disparity under twain disparate sermon and disparate impact analyses, concluding that TVAs prejudiced hiring functioninges permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants (Walsh, 2010). The Appeals Court substantiate the disparate treatment claim, rev ersed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the rule courts award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap (Walsh, 2010). 2. Explain why the complainants disparate (adverse) impact claim failed. The disparate impact hypothesis requires a complainant to demonstrate that an apparently indifferent(p) employment example affects ace group more harshly than another and that the practise is not justified by occupancy necessity. Under this possibility, proof of discriminatory intent is not required.Although the district court concluded that TVAs audience service had been manipulated to exclude African-American expectations in general, the court of appeals disagreed, citing the lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a prima facie miscue. Mr. Dunlap couldnt develop his claim by only ambitious the solve holdd in his own interrogate, thus the ruling was that the district court clearly erred in finding a prima facie gr imace of disparate impact (FindLaw, 2011). 3. Explain why the plaintiffs disparate treatment claim succeeded. The disparate treatment doctrine requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people little favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Three provisions required to boot out disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in position pretextual. verification of discriminatory motive is critical and may be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment. Proof may in like manner be inferred from the falsity of the employers explanation for the treatment, (Walsh, 2010). Mr. Dunlap successfully established a prima facie case of disparate treatment by meeting the above 3 provisions (1) he was Africa n-American (2) he was qualified for the position sought and (3) white applicants with less experience were hired for 9 of the 10 open jobs.TVA attempted to oppose his claim by offering the selection matrix used during his query as examine to prove that he didnt rank as one of the top 10 applicants payable to his interview cooks. However, Mr. Dunlap was able to controvert TVAs claim by demonstrating that his matrix score was manipulated to keep him out of top 10, thus proving it was merely a pretext way for TVA to skin discriminatory intent.Both courts noted that the increased weight given to the interview created a more subjective process and the lack of an objective military rank of the interview questions allowed the alteration of scores to produce a racially dyed result. Also, there was proof that some of the score sheets were changed as m both as 70 times without recite of any legitimate reason to support the revisions. The court of appeals concurred with the district court that due to the above irregularities, the hiring matrix score used by TVA for not hiring Mr. Dunlap was unreliable and that discrimination motivated the hiring deputations decision-making. (FindLaw, 2010). 4. What should the TVA halt done differently with regard to interviewing and selecting panoramas for these jobs? The following speculate several provisions the TVA should aim done with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for the 10 jobs. First, TVA should have done e very(prenominal)thing at heart its power to ensure the selection commission didnt consist of racist representatives which is a bad reflection on the order.TVA involve to ensure these people are very aware and adhere to the companys hiring and discrimination policies. Second, these representatives should be very familiar with and adhere to TVAs Principles and Practices on fill uping vacant positions, mandate that merit and efficiency contour the basis for selection of job candidates, stati ng that education, didactics, experience, ability, and previous work performance serve well as a basis for appraisal of merit and efficiency (Walsh, 2010).The committee should also have adhered to the Cumberland plant HR Directors electronic mail that explicitly stated that interviewers should not award points for being a transformation candidate and it is really important up front before your interviews assume to have a definition of what enceinte, Well-Qualified, and Qualified is. This needs to be documented and dated before the interview process starts (Walsh, 2010). The district court found the interviewers placed candidates in these categories after the interviews and ranking had been completed.In turn, this ensured the number of Outstanding applicants equaled the exact number of job openings and their candidates of choice were in the top 10 group. As a result, TVA should ensure a legitimate matrix is substantial for scoring purposes and not be manipulated for preferred results. Finally, TVA should screen their HR representatives very carefully prior to hiring provide initial ethics and discrimination training and on an ongoing basis to ensure current laws are followed.ReferencesFindLaw (2011). US court of appeals sixth circuit. Retrieved fromhttp//caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1092121.htmlUnited States Court of Appeals (March 21, 2008). Appeal from the United States District Court for the middle district of tennessee at nashville. No. 04-00045. Retrieved from http//www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/08a0121p-06.pdfWalsh, D. J. (2010). Employment law for humans resource course session 2010 custom edition (3rd ed.). Mason, OH South-Western Cengage LearningDunlap v. Tennessee Valley empowermentThe Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of color, as well as national origin, sex, religion. This law applies to any employers with 15 or more employees including the local state, dispos al, employment agencies, labor organizations and federal government jobs. David Dunlap a fifty-two black male who worked as a roll maker for twenty years has perform numerous of jobs for Tennessee Valley Authority and decided to interview for one of the ten position that TVA had available at the Cumberland facility.The district court found that Dunlap was subject to discrimination under both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. After analyzing both the disparate impact and the disparate treatment the disparate impact claim had failed due to the lack of evidence that Dunlap could provide to support his case, just now he had affluent evidence from the interview process to prove that the disparate treatment theory would help him to win his case against Tennessee Valley Authority. Explain why the plaintiffs disparate (adverse) impact claim fail?The disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a facially neutral employment practice falls more harshly on one group than another and practice is not justified by business necessity. With this claim the plaintiffs most identify a specific employment practice to be challenged also through relevant statistical analysis proves that the challenged practice has an adverse on the protected group. With the decision to hire only a certain amount of people to join the Tennessee Valley Authority Dunlap count on that he had a great chance of being a candidate due to the years that he have invested with the company.Dunlap did not present evidence that the practice can show that a protected group was adversely impacted. Since he could not prove his claim by challenging the process used in his own interview the courts decided that the disparate impact claim would not be enough sufficient evidence to use against Tennessee Valley Authority. Explain why the plaintiffs disparate treatment claim succeed? Dunlap succeeded with disparate treatment because he had efficient evidence (examples) to show t he district court. The examples that he shared showed how he was treated within the interview process.Within the disparate treatment claim the plaintiff must be able to, establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscrimatory reason for its actions and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the stated reason was in fact pretextual. One of the examples that were used was that Dunlap receive a 3. 7 for reporting missing some days off, but two other candidates reliable a 4. 2 and 5. 5 when they shouldnt have received a better score than him. They also gave Dunlap a 4 on his safety record, even though he had a perfect score.Two of the candidates had two accidents in eleven years and they both received higher scores than Dunlap. He also talked about how he bedded 14 and they were split into three groups outstanding, qualified and well- qualified. The ten candidates were all elect to have one of the positions. There were also emails to support some of the evidence Dunlap had. I debate being able to prove the three requirements was why the plaintiff was successful. He was able to us examples that really supported him the emails also helped him to be successful.The emails showed proof of discrimination amongst all candidates. What should the TVA have done differently with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for these jobs? Due to this company being one of the hardest companies to get engaged with, the Human Resource team should have first met up with each other to come up with characteristics that they would want each candidate to show to help the company be more of an asset our society. Secondly, I think that the Tennessee Valley Authority should have really sat down and break apart each candidate that was applying for the ten positions.With this company only have a select ten positions available the hiring managers should have been very specific with the candidates that should be chosen. They should have compared and contrasts the advantages and disadvantages of each candidate upon calling them to set up an interview. They should have taken some time to look at each industry to cross out the ones that did not meet the characteristic that were initially brought about. aftermath should not have ever been a factor and seeking candidates to fill all ten open positions.Regardless of anyones race the job quiesce has to be completed. Everyone should have been given a fair chance for any position available. They could have also given everyone a trial uttermost to let their performance speak for itself. I think that each candidate should have been given a fair opportunity to be rewarded with a job with Tennessee Valley Authority. So many companies try to use and squall you as long as you will let them Dunlap felt that he had an equal chance to get hired on with this company in which he had been working as temp for a long accomplishment of time.In conclusion, I really enjoyed reading the Dunlap vs. Tennessee Valley Authority legal case. This case shows me that sometimes the things that you want may not be the things that you really want to deal with. It also display the courageous to stand up for what is indemnify. Although Dunlap knew that he had a great chance of being hired through Tennessee Valley Authority when he did not receive the position he knew that something had to be wrong. We as people do not think that your race plays a major part in receiving a job and although it is not right sometimes it does.Dunlap did a great job sharing the examples of the things that happen to him during the interview selection process. Even though the things that went on throughout the interview process were not right, he was able to show them that they were wrong. I am refulgent that he did not get discourage about pursuing the issue of being discriminated against. No matter what kind of case it may be the plaintiffs always have the burden of proof, whic h means it is up to the plaintiff to prove their case. Dunlap did just that