Business Employment Law - Case Study Example

Business Employment Law: Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley ity case Introduction The need to establish and maintain objectivity during the process of hiring employees is key to defending accusations of unlawful discrimination. The case scenario of Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority reflects the course of events when there is manipulation in the hiring process to achieve desired result. In this case, it features an African-American applicant called David Dunlap who is 52 years old. He had a work experience of 20 years working as a boilermaker, including 15 years of experience as a foreman for a boil-makers crew (Find Law, 2008). Notably, most of the experience he gained while working as a temporary worker at various Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) facilities in Tennessee. The claim was that he had applied for a position in TVA without getting even an interview, despite his vast experience while working for TVA (Find Law, 2008). The case followed that it was along the lines of racial discrimination that he did not get the position of interview since the hiring committee consisted of nine white members and a single African-American member. The legal issues in the case In the case, David Dunlap filed the suit against the Tennessee Valley Authority in the District Court with claims that he faced racial discrimination, which is contrary to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act established in 1964 (Find Law, 2008). In the first case, the courts evaluated the claims as he presented on the basics of the law available, incorporating the key elements notable to the case. The District court in this case realized that TVA was subjective as Mr. Dunlap faced acts that amounted to disparate treatment, disparate impact and disparate analysis. The belief was that TVA in its hiring procedures was practicing acts of racial discrimination and biases against Mr. Dunlap, as well as, other applicants of the African American race (Walsh, 2010). Notably, Mr. Dunlap presented claims that showed the aspects of priority given to the white over the black people, irrespective of them having better qualifications and work experiences than the white people. However, Mr. Dunlap failed to prove the case regarding disparate impact. The case later proceeded to the U.S. Court of Appeal with the legal issue being, to establish whether Dunlap fulfilled the burden of proof in the case, in addition to establishing the correctness of the District Court findings. The Court if Appeal confirmed the decisions of the District Court in the case, as they cited the insufficient evidence for disparate treatment. They also upheld the decision on awards for the damages and fees (Find Law, 2008). However, the Court of Appeal reversed the verdict on disparate impact. Why the plaintiff’s disparate, (adverse) impact claim failed Mr. Dunlap suit alleged that TVA manipulated the process of selection, causing the disparate impact on the minority candidates. He alleged he was a victim of intentional disparate treatment that both violate the Title VII. In analysis, the impact theory expects the employee or job applicant to ensure they demonstrate that an apparent employment practice affects a given group harshly (Emerson, 2009). In addition, that the employment practice favors the other side without justification. The countering side, that is the employer, in this case TVA should show that the manifest procedure relates to the employment process, an argument called “business necessity” justification (Find Law, 2008). Therefore, analyzing the case contents from this forgoing establishment, the District Court concluded that there was manipulation of the interview process to exclude the African American applicants (Walsh, 2010). The Court of Appeal disagreed, citing that the case lacked statistical proof to demonstrate successfully that the cited group was adversely affected. Further, Dunlap failed to show how the selected protocol served the interests of the employer creating the undesirable discriminatory effects. Therefore, Mr. Dunlap failed on his claim since he only based his arguments on the interview; hence, lacking sufficient evidence. Why the plaintiff’s disparate, treatment claim succeeded In the claims for disparate treatment, as articulated in the law requires the plaintiff demonstrate that the employer favorably treated some people and showed bias on other basing on their race, color, race, sex or religion (Emerson, 2009). In analyzing the case, the bench considers whether the plaintiff meets his burden of ultimate factual inquiry as designated in Title VII. Under the disparate treatment theory, establishing proof of discriminatory motive is a critical component of the case. Mr. Dunlap alleged that the TVA was intentionally discriminating against him along the basis of his race. The district court, as well as, the Court of Appeal both agreed that he established a reliable prima facie which was minimally sufficient for the case of disparate treatment. He showed that as is African American thus qualifying for application of the claim. He had the qualifications required for the post he sought at TVA. Additionally, in comparison to the white applicants, he had experience higher than the white applicants did. Hence, he used this argument for showing the case of discrimination in the hiring process (Walsh, 2010). The TVA rebuts an inference that is non-discriminatory as required in the law for rejecting him, citing the matrix for his interview scores. TVA argued that his scores were low, failing to enlist him in the selection list. Following this rebut, Dunlap showed the burden of proof, arguing this was a pretext to override the discriminatorily intent. He so established this by facilitating evidence that his matrix score for the interview was manipulated so that he could not reach the top ten qualified applicants. The courts noted the weight given to the interviews instituted a subjective process, despite TVA policy (Find Law, 2008). Additionally, the interview also lacked an objective evaluation as the questions used allowed alteration of scores to produce results with racial biases. Hence, from this evidence, his claims for disparate treatment succeeded. What TVA should have done differently regarding interviewing and selecting candidates for the jobs Hiring most qualified applicants in a job is a remarkably sensitive process. The TVA’s selection committee factor of manipulating the applicants’ scores stripped their defense for the case on disparate treatment (Find Law, 2008). For TVA to facilitate its hiring and interviewing processes for the jobs, it should institute core policies and other cooperate directives that align with their desired goals. The committee should have avoided using objective measures for evaluating the applicants (Cihon & Castagnera, 2008). For instance, it should have avoided questions that feature physical characteristics of applicants, in addition to other stereotyping aspects that impair the selection process. References Cihon, Patrick J., & Castagnera, James Ottavio. (2008). Employment and Labor Law. South- Western Pub. Emerson, R. W. (2009). Business law. Hauppauge, N.Y: Barrons Educational Series. Walsh, D. J. (2010). Employment law for human resource practice. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning. Find Law, ( 2008). United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit: David Dunlap, Plaintiff- Appellee, V. Tennessee Valley Authority, Defendant-Appellant. No. 07-5381. Decided: March 21, 2008. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1092121.html Read More