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. On the other hand, the disparate impact principle requires that a plaintiff should show that an apparently neutral employment practice affected one group more severely than another, and that the practice is not justified, informed or underpinned by business necessity (Hagen II, 2011).There are several reasons why the plaintiff’s disparate treatment claim succeeded. For one, it could be established that in contravention of the TVA policy, the selection committee had placed primary weight on subjective measurements. Secondly, it was clear that the scores had varied widely on objective questions. The third reason for the same is that it was established that the score sheets or cards had been repeatedly revised after the conclusion of the interviews, in contravention to the TVA policy (Thomas, 2011).Again, the District Court had evaluated the credibility of TVA’s witnesses and satisfactorily established that discrimination had informed and driven the decision-making that the selection committee’s arrived at.Just as Zacharias (2010) recommends, obviously, TVA should have evaded the unfortunate and embarrassing development above by adhering to the dictates of In this light, TVA should have ensured that the recruitment process is free from any form of interference, transparent and accountable.
Banner, S. (2003). The myth of the neutral amicus: American courts and their friends, 1790- 1890. Constitutional Commentary, 20 (1), 111.
Hagen II, W. W. (2011). Dissection and Analysis of the Recent Cases on Employment Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23 (3), 171 – 186.
Patrick, H. J. (2003). Workplace Culture and Law. American Business Review, 11 (6), 94.
Thomas, T. (2011). Equality and Recruitment Practices. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 23 (5), 76 – 86.
Zacharias, P. T. (2010). Organizational Practices and Law. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 13 (5), 76 – 86.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples