Question # 1 What were the issues regarding this case?
The alleged charges of racial discrimination in a job interview against 52-year old, David Dunlap. Dunlap believed he was overlooked on his application for the Tennessee Valley Authority. His reason behind this is that the position was given to less able applicants due to the fact that the interviewers were bias towards certain groups, which can fall under racial discrimination. Dunlap has worked as a boilermaker for 25 years and 15 years of foreman experience under his belt. All this experience was acquired within TVA. Though he worked as a ‘”temp” (temporary) worker and also as a contractor. He was hired from an outside agency to work for TVA, so he was never officially affiliated with TVA before. This brought up the idea of being a TVA employee and working for TVA. Though he was not an official Tennessee Valley Authority employee, he did work with and at the same job and field as TVA employees did. This means that Dunlap had the same exposure to the experience and skills needed for his job application for the company as official Tennessee Valley Authority employees had. Dunlap took his case to court and tried to prove his candidacy was in any way or form decreased not by experience level but by a certain group bias or racial discrimination. Dunlap brought this under suit under Title VII.
The plaintiff’s disparate impact failed because he did not prove discrimination by the company. The apparent neutral employment opportunity company that TVA put under its name argued that proof of discriminatory intent is not required. Dunlap failed to prove that these procedures and bias were previously in action in past interviews. He failed to prove or give reason why a neutral employment opportunity company would discriminate him on race or any other factor. The district court’s verdict was that the interviewing procedures done by TVA were in a way handled and put forth were to rule out African Americans. However, the court of appeals disagreed with this verdict claiming that there was not sufficient analytical data proved that a certain group was favorably or if it was met with adversity against them.
Dunlap successfully proved and provided disparate treatments, which were as following; he was African-American; he had more experience than hired white applicants; and his score on safety test was higher than hired white applicant. Dunlap succeeded with disparate treatment claim, because TVA’s interview conducted by merit measuring. The court determined that TVA had discriminatory practice on its hiring processes; they rejected candidates who were not their favorite. The court also found that TVA’s irregular hiring matrix could not be reason
