'Dunlap V. Tennessee Valley Authority Essay\r'

'What were the legal issues in this case? In the case of Dunlap VS Tennessee valley Authority, the legal issue that was presented was favoritism, unlike pr to each oneing and disparate shock absorber. According to the EEOC, escape discrepancy involves treating person (an applicant or employee) unfavourably because he/she is of a indisputable race or because of personal characteristics associated with race (such as hair school keepure, skin color, or certain facial features). Color diversity involves treating approximately(a) hotshot unfavorably because of skin color complexion.\r\nThe agnomen VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects drop deaders from favouritism, and when it comes to the case, variation was seen in many a(prenominal) ways. For starters, when it came to the interviewing process, in that respect were 5 white officials and 1 blue which showed that the style was not balance. Next, when it came to the scoring, he received start make ups than the whites. The next issue that showed inequality was when it came to the attendance record of the holders.\r\nTwo of the workers who were Caucasian, had the equal attendance as Dunlap, and they received a dampen ranking. Also, Dunlap had a perfect safety device record and received a score of a 4; while a white applicant who was at the byplay for eleven, had 2 accidents within those years and received a score of 6. Dunlap was not the unaccompanied African American to bind problems with TVA when it came to diversity as well. The gibe that was brought against TVA was for disparity low disparate disturb and handling.\r\nDisparate dissemble theory requires the complainant to try step forward that the deftness falls raspingly on atomic number 53 group than another; disparate treatment requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated approximately people badly because of the race, age, gender or any other discrimination doer (Walsh, 2010). The regulari ze motor hotel found many filings along with the situation that Dunlap had been subjected to discrimination infra some(prenominal) disparate treatment, concluding that TVA’s subjective hiring processes permitted racial bias against both Dunlap and other black applicants (Walsh, 2010).\r\nAccording to the text subjective criteria is assessing nominees that atomic number 18 not ordered and clearly specified, and when it came to Dunlap and the facts that were presented subjective hiring was conducted. The Appeals Court confirm the disparate treatment claim, reversed the disparate impact claim, and affirmed the district beg’s award of damages and fees to Mr. Dunlap (Walsh, 2010) condone why the plaintiff’s disparate (adverse) impact claim fail? The actor that disparate impact failed is because when it comes discriminatory actions in this theory, proof is not required.\r\nThe disparate impact theory requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an apparently neu tral employment coiffe affects one group more harshly than another and that the coif is not justify by business necessity. A prima(predicate) face case is established when the plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice to be argufyd; and through relevant statistical analysis invokes that the challenged practice has an adverse impact on a protected group. When it comes to the case, discrimination was seen, entirely never affects more than one class.\r\nGlass ceiling in the book is referred to artificial barriers based on attitudinal or geological formational bias that prevent certifiable individuals from advancing in there organization to upper management. The case that glass ceiling is seen is because when it comes to the interviewing process, there was altogether 1 black interviewer. Then when it came to the recruits, even if there work effort was poor and they were white, there win was higher than the African Americans. But because discrimination is a fact tha t is null and blank in this theory and because discrimination doesn’t matter, that’s why it failed. The only criteria Mr.\r\nDunlap could prove was that the interview process had been manipulated to exclude black candidates, and how the scoring was different for blacks and whites. So in the essence in this theory, it was a challenge to prove it because Dunlap only had his interview inform why the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim succeed? The former disparate treatment was successful was because it requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that an employer has treated some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, grammatical gender or national origin. The first fact was the manipulating of the score.\r\nIn this case, Dunlap was able to prove that the intercellular substance process was pretext for discrimination. After the district court did some investigation, they found that some of sheets had been changed more than 70 times , and there was no reason what so ever for the change. Dunlap state the matrix score was manipulated to keep him out of the top ten applicants. Another reason it was a success was because William Parchman, an African-American with thirty years of examine as a boilermaker that was also rejected. He played a vital role in the suit because of the problems he encountered to become employed with TVA. He provided testimony hat he had a recital of being rejected for jobs and promotions at the company. He also stated that the only reason got the boilermaker position was after he filed a complaint with the EEOC. Other facts that showed discrimination was evidence before the district court when it came to the weight given to the interview and how it was changed, questions in the interview was not evaluated objectively, and the make headway were modify to produce a racially unilateral result. Bottom line is that when it comes to discrimination, it was proven in several ways, and the distr ict court pull no error in determination disparate treatment.\r\nThe court saw how discrimination was seen from different people, and Dunlap was not the only worker that felt that way. What should the TVA energize done other than with regard to interviewing and selecting candidates for these jobs? When it comes to interviewing candidates, what’s should of been done other than is looking at the applicants work history thoroughly. The first thing that should make believe been looked at first is education. When workers have education, they are better qualified because they will know how to phone outside if the box. If an applicant didn’t have the education, then TVP sould look at experience as well as work writ of execution.\r\nWhen looking at experience, factors that should be viewed are supervisory experience along with performance and safety in the workplace. In the interviewing process, things that could have been different is interviewing with one interviewer a t a time. Also the questions could have been different for each interviewer so that everyone was not following the said(prenominal) pattern. All of the oodles would be the same, but the questions would be different and give the take up candidates for the job. Another thing that could have been different is having a animal trainer present in the room to grab and check the papers when the interview is finish.\r\nBy a manager being there to verifying the score, there is not chance that manipulating could happen with the scoring. If this figure of approach would have been used, the selecting process would have been different because no interviewer or candidate would have the same response. But the scores would show the real qualified applicants, and they would merit the promotion. Nothing would be bias and scores could not be altered.\r\n'