Dunlap V. Tennessee Valley Authority Essay

W palpebra were the legal issues in this cocktail dress? In the case of Dunlap VS Tennessee Valley Authority, the legal issue that was presented was difference, disparate manipulation and disparate impact. According to the EEOC, race unlikeness involves treating several(prenominal)one (an applicator or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personalised characteristics associated with race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color disparity involves treating someone unfavorably because of skin color complexion.The Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects exertioners from discrimination, and when it comes to the case, discrimination was seen in numerous ways. For starters, when it came to the interviewing process, on that point were 5 white officials and 1 dark which showed that the room was not balance. Next, when it came to the scoring, he received deject adds than the whites. The next issue that s howed discrimination was when it came to the attendance record of the arrive aters.Two of the workers who were Caucasian, had the same attendance as Dunlap, and they received a better ranking. Also, Dunlap had a perfect safety record and received a score of a 4 while a white applicant who was at the job for eleven, had 2 accidents indoors those years and received a score of 6. Dunlap was not the whole African American to take aim problems with TVA when it came to discrimination as well. The suit that was brought against TVA was for discrimination below disparate impact and treatment.Disparate impact theory requires the complainant to usher that the facility falls gratingly on one group than an otherwise disparate treatment requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people badly because of the race, age, gender or any other discrimination situationor (Walsh, 2010). The territorial dominion court found many filings along with the position that D unlap had been subjected to discrimination under both disparate treatment, concluding that TVAs subjective 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 support the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district courts lay out of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap (Walsh, 2010) Explain why the plaintiffs disparate (adverse) impact claim fail? The fence 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 neutral employment practice affects one group more harshly than another and that the practice is not justified by business nec essity. A prima face case is established when the plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice to be challenged and through relevant statistical analysis conjure ups that the challenged practice has an adverse impact on a protected group. When it comes to the case, discrimination was seen, but never affects more than one class.Glass ceiling in the book is referred to artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing in there organization to upper management. The think that glass ceiling is seen is because when it comes to the interviewing process, there was only 1 black interviewer. Then when it came to the recruits, even if there work effort was poor and they were white, there scores was higher than the African Americans. But because discrimination is a fact that is null and void in this theory and because discrimination doesnt matter, thats why it failed. The only criteria Mr.Dunlap could prove was that the i nterview process had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates, and how the scoring was assorted 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 reason disparate treatment was winnerful 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 matrix process was pretext for discrimination. After 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 state the matrix score was manipulated to keep him out of the top ten applicants. Another reason it was a success was because William Parchman, an A frican-American with thirty years of experience as a boilermaker that was also rejected. He played a vital role in the suit because of the problems he encountered to become employed with TVA. He provided testimony hat he had a history of being 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 in advance 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 adapted to produce a racially biased 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 felt that way. What should the TVA have done differ ently 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 will 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 to each one interviewer so that everyone was not following the same pattern. All of the scores would be the same, but the questions would be different and give the best candidates for the job. Another thi ng that could have been different is having a manager present in the room to grab 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 type 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 realistic qualified applicants, and they would deserve the promotion. Nothing would be bias and scores could not be altered.