Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority
The legal issue in this case is about David Dunlap the plaintiff who has been faced with discrimination on the basis of race in the interview at Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) during the employment process of this company. Mr. Dunlap is an African American man whom has worked for many years as foreman through contract for the union. He has worked as a contractor with the union at Tennessee Authority as a boiler man for over twenty years including fifteen years as a foreman. He has applied for employment at TVA numerous times since 1970 and was not once offered an interview. Mr. Dunlap has established that regardless of experience and during the hiring development, the company has allowed racial favoritism. The court has to recognize if the business is legally responsible under title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 for racial bias with intent. Mr. Dunlap has claimed the case under disparate impact and disparate treatment investigation. (Walsh, 2010)
Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim fail?
The plaintiff disparate (adverse) impact claim failed because this type of philosophy involves the plaintiff proving that the employment practice was more severely on one set of individuals than another, and the practice is not justified by business necessity. A prima face case is recognized when: (1) the plaintiff perceives a certain employment practice to be tested; and (2) through appropriate statistical investigation and revealing that the test practice has an adverse impact on a certain group. Mr. Dunlap did not present clues that the practices used in his conversation was used for other employment results, and no statistical evidence proof can display that a secure set of people was adversely impacted. There was no confirmation at trial in regards to TVA hiring practices and the only scenarios recognized was the Cumberland committee interrogations and scoring of the applications during the Dunlap’s interviewing process. Furthermore,
Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim fail?
The plaintiff disparate (adverse) impact claim failed because this type of philosophy involves the plaintiff proving that the employment practice was more severely on one set of individuals than another, and the practice is not justified by business necessity. A prima face case is recognized when: (1) the plaintiff perceives a certain employment practice to be tested; and (2) through appropriate statistical investigation and revealing that the test practice has an adverse impact on a certain group. Mr. Dunlap did not present clues that the practices used in his conversation was used for other employment results, and no statistical evidence proof can display that a secure set of people was adversely impacted. There was no confirmation at trial in regards to TVA hiring practices and the only scenarios recognized was the Cumberland committee interrogations and scoring of the applications during the Dunlap’s interviewing process. Furthermore,