Dunlap V. Tennessee Valley Authority
Dr. Robert Waldo
Business Employment Law – HRM 510

What were the legal issues in this case? Mr. David Dunlap brought suit against the Tennessee
Valley Authority alleging racial discrimination. Mr. Dunlap a fifty two year-old Black man worked as a boilermaker for twenty years.
Mr. Dunlap accused the company of choosing other participants over him. The company chose a scoring system to rate each candidate. Mr. Dunlap contended that white candidates were given higher score although they had several infractions on their record.
He also contended that questions he was asked based on his attendance and safety record was excellent he received a low score versus the other candidates who had the same answers received a higher score for the same questions.

Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim fail? The disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that a facility neutral employment practice falls more harshly on one group than another and that the practice is not justified by business necessity. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA) prohibit the use of Discriminatory employment tests and selection procedures. There has been an increase in employment testing due in part to post 9-11 security concerns as well as concerns about workplace violence, safety, and liability. In addition, the large-scale adoption of online job applications has motivated employers to seek efficient ways to screen large numbers of online applicants in a non-subjective way.
The number of discrimination charges raising issues of employment testing, and exclusions based on criminal background checks, credit reports, and other selection procedures, reached a high point in FY 2007 at 304 charges. Mr. Dunlap did not present evidence that the practices used in his interview were ever used for other hiring decisions, so no statistical proof can show that a protected group was adversely impacted. (The U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission).

Explain why the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim succeed? The disparate treatment doctrine 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. 1) Mr. Dunlap proved that the Tennessee Valley
Authority was treating him less favorably than others because of his race. 2) The Tennessee Valley Authority did not provide a legitimate reason for not hiring Mr. Dunlap or to the fact why other less qualified candidates received higher scores or percentages although their record was the same as Mr. Dunlap’s.

References
Walsh, D.J. (2010). Employment law for human resource practice: 2010 custom edition (3rd ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western

http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/5-16-07/index.html.