Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority - Coursework ExampleThis theory requires the plaintiff to prove that the employer is biased against a specific group. A star(predicate) facie case is established when (1) the defendant identifies a specific employment practice to be challenged and (2) through relevant statistical analysis proves that the challenged practice has an adverse seismic disturbance on a protected group. Walsh, D. J. (2010, pg 210). Here Dunlap couldnt present any evidence which connected his wonder and the practices used during that interview with that of the former(a) candidates that were part of the interview process. indeed there was no statistical proof to compare and contrast the rest of the interviews with his own in front of the court and show how TVA misused its potence and purposely rejected him. This lack of evidence meant that the court should not accept Dunlaps appeal for disparate impact thus the claim failed. In the disparate treatment the plaintiff has to prove how the employer is biased against a selected group of individuals based on their cast, color, origin or religion. A clear case is established when (1) The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination (2) the employer must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions and (3) the plaintiff must prove that the verbalise reason was in fact pretextual. (Walsh, D. J., 2010, pg 210). This law is clearly submitd in the case and transcribed. The disparate treatment claim was however successful as Dunlap was able to provide a strong case of racial discrimination. The Tennessee Valley Authority needed to provide a valid reason to reject the plaintiff which it did by providing the plectron matrix used during Dunlaps interview. Here Dunlap was able to rebut the selection matrix and showed how the selection commissioning decided to distribute the marks for the final score. The committee agreed that seventy percent marks be kept for th e interview while the other thirty percent be given for the education, training and experience. This diffusion did not correspond with the companys policies which clearly tell that the burden of the final score be based on technical experience, education and training. Thus the selection committee violated the policies without informing any of the candidates and changed the calculation of the final score from an objective measurement (favors education and training) towards a subjective measurement (favors dialogue skills). Dunlaps claim was a success as he successfully proved the pretextual nature of TVAs stated reason. He showed how they manipulated the selection matrix to bring down his score in comparison to the other applicants so that he does not make the top ten. Dunlap narrated examples which showed how the selection committee had a biased approach. He stated that his attendance record was excellent with only a few leaves, quite similar to that of a couple of white applica nts but the marks he and the other applicants received varied significantly. Similarly on another occasion he had a better safety record than most, still he received lesser marks as compared to the white applicants. In addition to this the court was able to find a connection in the score balancing process and how the way out of outstanding candidates exactly equaled the job vacancies. The scores were changed after the interviews thus