Recruitment Drives - Research Paper Example

In the case, an African American, David Dunlap applies for a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority as a boilmaker. A selection committee facilitates the interview at the facilities’ premises. The interview consists of technical and non-technical questions. 70% of the marks are to account for the interview process and the remainder, the applicant’s experience. Dunlap feels that the scores produced in the interview are discriminatory: Dunlap’s attendance record was similar to two white applicants’ records with 4.2 and 5.5, yet he receives a score of 3.7. The plaintiff is David Dunlap who had filed a suit at the District Court against the Tennessee Valley Authority, claiming that he was racially discriminated against, and in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The courts ruled in favor of Dunlap, on the account that he was subjected to disparate treatment, impact and analysis. The District Court in its ruling statement pointed out that Tennessee Valley Authority [TVA] was subjective in its recruitment process and procedures and exacted out racial biasness against Dunlop and other applicants of African Americans descent. The defendant, TVA appealed against the ruling. The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in this case was tasked with the need to determine whether Dunlop had fulfilled the burden of proof in the case, and if the District Court was right in its ruling.

The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling, on the account of sufficient evidence of unfair and discriminatory treatment. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of desperate impact that the District Court had upheld. The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling on awards of damages and fees (Patrick, 2003).As is clearly shown by Banner (2003), Dunlap’s disparate impact claim failed because he fell short of proving that TVA’s recruitment practices affected one particular group more severely than another.

Discriminatory proof is not required in this kind of situation. On the one hand, even though the District Court agreed and ruled to the effect that TVA’s interviews and recruitment procedures were discriminatory against African Americans, the US Court of Appeal ruled that Dunlop did not adduce statistical proof to show that a group was being negatively impacted, needed for the establishment of a prima facie case.