United States: Supreme Court: District Court EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Decisions Subject To Abuse Of Discretion

Linda Auerbach Allderdice is a Partner and John Haney and Juan Rodriguez are Associates in the Los Angeles office

HIGHLIGHTS:

  • In McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a district court's decision to enforce or quash a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subpoena must be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo review.
  • Given the deferential nature of the abuse of discretion standard, this decision will raise the stakes associated with district court EEOC subpoena enforcement proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, the only Circuit that previously applied a de novo standard of review for such proceedings on appeal.
  • Going forward, employers served with an EEOC subpoena should pay special attention to asserting comprehensive objections to the subpoena where appropriate, and to raising all available defenses in any district court enforcement proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, given that it will now be more difficult to prevail on an appeal of an adverse district court enforcement decision.

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on April 3, 2017, in McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case which presented the question of what the appropriate standard of appellate review is for a district court's decision to enforce or quash a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subpoena. In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that a district court's decision whether to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena must be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo review as was previously applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the only circuit that used such a standard.

EEOC Launched Investigation into McLane Co. After Charge of Discrimination Filed

McLane Co. Inc. (McLane Co.) is a supply chain services company and employs cigarette selectors to work in its distribution centers. Cigarette selectors are required to lift, pack and move large bins containing products. As this job is physically demanding, McLane Co. requires new employees, and employees returning from medical leave, to take a physical evaluation that tests an employee's range of motion, resistance and speed. The evaluation is designed and administered by a third party.

Damiana Ochoa (Ochoa) was a cigarette selector for McLane Co. In 2007, Ochoa took three months of maternity leave and, upon her return to work, McLane Co. asked her to take a physical evaluation. Ochoa took and failed the evaluation three times. Subsequently, McLane Co. terminated her employment.

Ochoa filed a charge of discrimination, alleging that she had been fired on the basis of her gender. The EEOC began an investigation and requested that McLane Co. provide the EEOC with basic information about the evaluation and a list of employees that McLane Co. had asked to take the evaluation. The EEOC also sought what the parties called "pedigree information" – names, Social Security numbers, last-known addresses and telephone numbers of the employees who had been asked to take the evaluation.

EEOC Sought to Enforce Subpoenas After McLane Co.'s Noncompliance

McLane Co. provided the EEOC with a list which included each employee's gender, role at the company, evaluation score, as well as the reason each employee had been asked to take the evaluation. McLane Co. refused, however, to provide the "pedigree information."

After the EEOC discovered that McLane Co. used the evaluation nationwide, the EEOC expanded its investigation geographically to focus on McLane Co.'s nationwide operations and, substantively, to investigate whether McLane Co.'s employees had been subjected to age discrimination.

Because the EEOC was unable to obtain all the information it sought, the EEOC issued two subpoenas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-9 requesting, inter alia, the "pedigree information," one relating to Ochoa's charge and the other relating to the EEOC's investigation of possible age discrimination. When McLane Co. did not comply with the subpoenas, the EEOC filed two actions in a federal district court seeking enforcement of its subpoenas.

District Court Quashed Subpoenas to Extent They Sought Personal Information, and Ninth Circuit Reversed after De Novo Review

A district court judge, presiding over both enforcement actions, declined to enforce the subpoenas to the extent that they sought the "pedigree information," finding that such information was not relevant to the charges.1 The district court judge found that the personal information was not relevant at that time because the information could not assist in determining whether the evaluation was a tool of discrimination.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed as to the subpoena relating to Ochoa's charge,2 finding that McLane Co. had to disclose the personal employee information requested in the EEOC's subpoena.3 The Ninth Circuit noted that it had to follow circuit precedent, but questioned why de novo review applied for district court EEOC subpoena enforcement proceedings when every other circuit "appear[ed] to review issues related to enforcement of administrative subpoenas for abuse of discretion."4

The Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question of whether a district court's decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo or should be reviewed under the more deferential de novo standard.

Supreme Court Vacated Ninth Circuit Judgment, Adopted Abuse of Discretion Standard for District Court EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Decisions and Remanded for Further Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that the appropriate standard in reviewing a district court's decision to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena is abuse of discretion, not de novo. The Court relied on two factors: 1) whether "the history of appellate practice yields an answer," and 2) where there is neither a clear statutory prescription nor a historical tradition that exists, whether "one judicial actor is better positioned than another to decide the issue in question."

Regarding the first factor, the Court noted that it is the longstanding practice of the U.S. Courts of Appeals in reviewing district courts' decisions to enforce or quash an administrative subpoena to use the abuse of discretion standard. The Court noted that this practice even predated Title VII. Furthermore, in the time period between the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the incorporation of its subpoena-enforcement provisions into Title VII, every Circuit to consider this issue held that a district court's decision on whether to enforce a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) subpoena was subject to the abuse of discretion standard.

As to the second factor, the Supreme Court noted that a district court's decision on whether to enforce a subpoena will turn on whether the evidence sought is relevant, or whether the subpoena is unduly burdensome. In the Supreme Court's opinion, both tasks are well-suited to a district judge's expertise. Moreover, since these decisions are fact-intensive, they are better suited to be resolved by district courts rather than by the Courts of Appeals. The Supreme Court also noted that district court judges have an institutional advantage because they regularly make similar decisions such as applying Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 401 (whether evidence is relevant), and applying Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16(c)(2) (whether pretrial criminal subpoenas are unreasonable in scope).5

The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded so that the Ninth Circuit could review the district court's EEOC subpoena enforcement decision under the appropriate abuse of discretion standard.

Practical Ramifications

The Supreme Court has made it clear that a district court's decision to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena must be reviewed for abuse of discretion. Given the deferential nature of the abuse of discretion standard, this decision will raise the stakes associated with district court EEOC subpoena enforcement proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, the only Circuit that previously applied a de novo standard of review for such proceedings on appeal.

Going forward, employers served with an EEOC subpoena should pay special attention to asserting comprehensive objections to the subpoena where appropriate and to raising all available defenses in any district court enforcement proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, given that it will now be more difficult to prevail on an appeal of an adverse district court enforcement decision.

Footnotes

1 EEOC v. McLane Co., 2012 WL 1132758, *5 (D Ariz., Apr. 4, 2012) (age discrimination charge); Civ.No. 12–2469 (D Ariz., Nov. 19, 2012), App. to Pet. for Cert. 28–30 (Title VII charge).

2 The EEOC ultimately dropped its attempt to enforce the subpoena relating to the EEOC's investigation of possible age discrimination.

3 EEOC v. McLane Co., 804 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2015).

4 Id. at 1056 and n.3.

5 In reaching its holding, the Supreme Court also rejected the following Amicus arguments: 1) whether a subpoena should be enforced does not require the exercise of discretion because the court's primary role is to test the legal sufficiency of the subpoena, not whether it should be enforced as a substantive matter; 2) affording deferential review to a district court's decision would clash with Courts of Appeals decisions instructing district courts to defer themselves to the EEOC's determination that evidence is relevant to the charge at issue; and 3) a subpoena is a constructive search that has Fourth Amendment implications, requiring that a subpoena not be "too indefinite" and requiring a searching review.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions