Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
DUNLAP V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Dunlap v. TVA
Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2008)
Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2008)
Explain why the plaintiff's disparate impact claim failed?
A claim of disparate impact implies that the employer (defendant) unintentionally discriminated against the job applicant (plaintiff) (Seiner, 2013, p. 287). Under Title VII, any hiring practice that is fair in form, but through its application is effectively discriminatory, is illegal (Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 2008). The protected demographics under Title VII include racial minorities, religious minorities, and women. Mr. Dunlap's status as an African-American fulfills this requirement. In addition, the hiring practice must be unrelated to the open position and inconsistent with business necessity to be successfully challenged under Title VII. In other words, a claim of employment discrimination should provide evidence that the discriminatory practices were unrelated to the job and not required by the business. Mr. Dunlap sued the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) alleging disparate impact and treatment, the only two possible claims under Title VII for discriminatory hiring practices.
Proof of intent is not essential to a claim of disparate impact, only that the hiring practice disproportionately and adversely affected a protected group for reasons other than business necessity (Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 2008). Supreme Court jurisprudence in disparate impact has established a three-part, burden-shifting test. The first part of this...
If the justices agree that that the plaintiff may have been discriminated against based on the evidence presented, then the defendant is required to show that the discrimination resulting from the hiring practice was based on business necessity. The third and final part of the test requires the plaintiff to show that alternative hiring practices would have fulfilled the needs of the business without discriminating against a protected group.
The criteria cited by the appeals court for establishing a prima facie case of discrimination are the following: (1) clear identification of the discriminatory hiring practice and (2) a statistical analysis proving protected groups suffered adversely as a result (Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 2008). Based on the evidence before the circuit judges it was unclear which employment practice represented the plaintiff's prima facie evidence, whether it was the hiring practice used in 2000 when Dunlap was ranked below the boilermakers hired or the hiring practices that had been in use system-wide by the TVA for decades. This lack of specificity, along with testimony relating only to the hiring of boilermakers in 2000, made it hard for the judges to conclude that a prima facie case of unintentional discrimination (disparate impact) had been adequately presented in the lower court. For this reason, the appeals court overturned the lower court's finding of disparate impact.
2. Explain why the plaintiff's disparate treatment claim succeeded
A claim of disparate treatment…
References
Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 519 F. 3d 626 (6th Cir. 2008).
Seiner, J.A. (2013). Plausibility and disparate impact. Hastings Law Journal, 64, 287-324.
Jurisprudence As a theory in law, Jurisprudence involves varying philosophical perceptions about the purposes of law, the legal system and the institutions developed to regulate law. In an effort to understand the basic, fundamental reasoning for law and of legal systems, legal scholars have developed theoretical frameworks within the umbra of jurisprudence. For the purposes of this paper, jurisprudential philosophies will include natural law, legal positivism and constructivist theories of law. Aristotle,
but, according to all other fuqah?', it should be transferred to the public treasury, because it belongs to the Muslims. According to Sh-fi ), the Muslims inherit it on the grounds of their being members of the same group (alta s-b); Ab? Han-fa agrees, on the basis of one of the two traditions reported by him (which includes Sh-fi's opinion), although the other tradition grounds it on friendship (muw-l-t), not
Johnson v Transportation Agency (1986) The two above cases both resulted in a broadening of the scopes and protections of the Civil Rights Act via jurisprudence. In Johnson v Transportation Agency (1986), a very different result was reached that shows the changing nature and understanding of discrimination and how it work in society. The difference in this case is also directly and explicitly related to the differences in the original plaintiffs
Upon becoming a paralegal, I may then begin to make use of the administrative and organizational skills I already possess to enhance my knowledge of the law. Further, other than my many years of experience in administrative positions, I have the advantage of many years in the military in general. Essentially, the law is a vast set of rules to be applied evenly and fairly across varying cultures. The military
Dworkin Jurisprudence The rule of law entails the practical manifestation of our social and philosophical ideals: the rule of law is ideals in action. The rule of law allows public standards to be applied to personal behaviors. The rule of law also requires the proper exercise of power by a governing body. The government enforces the law, but no individual is above the law. The principles of law include the following. The
One criticism is that the corporate and business world is more concerned with self-interest rather then ethics and human rights. "Corporate America, upon which much of the burden of economic growth depends, does what is good for itself. Such self-interest has had the effect of barring women from most executive suites and maintaining status quo gender roles...." (Gibelman, 2003. p 22) This is an aspect which, in combination with