HRM510 Business Employment Law
Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority
This case explores the fundamental legal issue of alleged racial discrimination by way of disparate treatment and disparate impact caused by Tennessee Valley Authority against a qualified, experienced boilermaker foreman. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding the matter are: Is this a case of disparate treatment? Is this a case of disparate impact? Was David Dunlap subject to racial discrimination? Did TVA use subjective hiring practices that permitted racial bias?
What was the legal issue in this case?
The legal issue in this case of Dunlap v Tennessee Valley Authority involved the alleged charges of racial discrimination. That case was presented before the court by 52-year old, David Dunlap, a 25 year boilermaker with 15 years of foreman experience. Most of his experiences were within TVA, but as a contractor or temporary worker, not actually employed with the organization. Dunlap feel his rights under the Title VII Civil Right Act of 1964, had been violated when he was by-passed for less qualified applicants for positions within TVA. He claimed that his work and supervisory experience and his technical skills qualified him for the positions. He believed that the interview process was tainted and was designed to be preferential to certain groups and could be described as racially bias. The court then had to decide if TVA intended to use harsh employment practices for Black interviewees compared to Whites and/or if they used discriminatory practices in denying Dunlap’s candidacy. Explain why the plaintiff's disparate (adverse) impact claim fails?
The plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim failed because the theory requires the plaintiff to depict how a facially neutral employment entity judges more harshly on one group than another and how the actions do...