The case, Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, explores the issue of suspected racial discrimination associated with disparate treatment and disparate impact caused by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) against a qualified, experienced boilermaker and foreman that is African American. Questions for the court to evaluate regarding this case include: Is this a case of disparate treatment and/or impact and was the plaintiff, David Dunlap, subject to racial discrimination? Finally, did the TVA use personal hiring practices that allowed for racial bias in the interviewing process?
What are the legal issues of this case? The Court in the 6th Circuit was to determine if the plaintiff, David Dunlap, had met the burden of proof that his…show more content… The proof of discriminatory intent is not required and although the court concluded that TVA’s processes with interviewing had been manipulated to exclude African-American candidates in general, the court disagreed, citing the “lack of statistical proof demonstrating that a protected group was adversely affected thus establishing a “prima facie” case” (Walsh, 2010). Dunlap did not prove, within the evidence presented, that the procedures TVA used were practiced prior. Although the district court concluded that “TVA's interview process had been manipulated to exclude African American candidates” (Walsh, 2010), the court of appeals disagreed because it did not believe there was analytical data that blatantly prove how any protected group was impacted adversely. The court found that Dunlap can only challenge his specific interview processes and not an entire group.
Explain why the plaintiff's disparate treatment claims succeed?
The disparate treatment doctrine requires that any plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer has treated some group of people less favorably than others because of any protected classification to include their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. According to Walsh, “Three provisions required to prove disparate treatment are (1) the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory