Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority - Coursework Example

This theory requires the plaintiff to prove that the employer is biased against a specific group. A prima 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 impact on a protected group. Walsh, D. J. (2010, pg 210). Here Dunlap couldn’t present any evidence which connected his interview and the practices used during that interview with that of the other candidates that were part of the interview process.

Thus 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 authority and purposely rejected him. This lack of evidence meant that the court should not accept Dunlap’s 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 stated reason was in fact pretextual.

(Walsh, D. J., 2010, pg 210). This law is clearly provided 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 selection matrix used during Dunlap’s interview. Here Dunlap was able to rebut the selection matrix and showed how the selection committee decided to distribute the marks for the final score.

The committee agreed that seventy percent marks be kept for the interview while the other thirty percent be given for the education, training and experience. This distribution did not correspond with the company’s policies which clearly stated 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 communication skills).

Dunlap’s claim was a success as he successfully proved the pretextual nature of TVA’s stated reason. He showed how they manipulated the selection matrix to reduce 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 applicants 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 number of “outstanding” candidates exactly equaled the job vacancies. The scores were changed after the interviews thus