Skip to main content

In the Case of EEOC Subpoenas, the Sixth Circuit Gives Broad Leeway


EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc. - Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Sinisa Matovski ("Matovski"), a disabled operations manager for United Parcel Service ("UPS"), filed an EEOC charge and claimed that UPS discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by publishing confidential medical information about him and other employees on its intranet page.  During the EEOC investigation, it issued a subpoena and requested information from UPS about how it stored and disclosed all employee medical information.  In relevant part, two broad groups of documents sought included:  1) UPS's internal injury and accident report from 2013 - 2015; and 2) UPS's "privacy case" criteria and all documents in regard to its implementation and creation.

UPS opposed the subpoena and sought to have it modified on the grounds that the information sought was irrelevant to the specific charge brought by Matovski.  The EEOC denied UPS's petition.  After a motion was filed in district court to show that the subpoena should not be enforced, the district court issued a ruling and ordered UPS to comply with the majority of the order.  UPS subsequently appealed.

Holding:  The Court began its analysis with a recognition that "the EEOC has authority to serve subpoenas to gain access to...any evidence of any person being investigated or proceeded against that relates to unlawful employment practices...and is relevant to the charge under investigation."  While there is some limitation placed on the relevancy standard, courts have tended to generously construe the standard and have traditionally afforded the EEOC access to virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against an employer.  For instance, it has been previously held that "the EEOC is entitled to...evidence [that] focuses on the existence of patterns of racial discrimination in job classifications or hiring situations other than those that the EEOC's charge specifically targeted.  As a result, the relevancy limitation does not mandate the EEOC only review evidence that concerns the specific charge.

In this instance, as noted above in the racial discrimination claim, the Court saw no reason to hold differently with respect to disability discrimination claims.  Although UPS argued the EEOC was entitled only to information of similarly situated employees, the Court disagreed.  The true test, as noted by the Court, was not whether the information is about similarly situated employees but whether the evidence "provides context for determining whether discrimination has taken place."  Based upon the facts of this case, Matovski's charge directly implicated the databases that UPS used to store and potentially disclose employee medical information.  Consequently, the documentation sought in the subpoena was found to be directly relevant to Matovski's charge. 

In regard to UPS's argument that the subpoena request was "unduly burdensome", the Court was not swayed.  While courts may not enforce an administrative subpoena unless the request seeks relevant material and is not unduly burdensome, in this case, UPS had failed to specifically identify how producing the requested pieces of evidence would be unduly burdensome.  As a result of UPS neglecting to show how the subpoena was unduly burdensome in any way, this argument failed.

Judgment:  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling and held that the EEOC subpoena sought relevant documentation, under the relaxed relevancy standard, and therefore was a proper request of documentation from UPS.

The Takeaway:  I often struggle picking out certain cases to highlight that focus on some of the more nuanced, procedural matters.  Not only are these opinions rather try (and often involve a thorough statutory and caselaw analysis) but I think some readers might find them more difficult to follow (I know I sometimes do).  However, this was one of those cases that I wanted to note if for no other reason than to point out to readers the broad latitude that is afforded to the EEOC in regard to its subpoenas to investigate its charges.  While some employers, such as UPS, might find some of the documentation requested to be overly burdensome, simply claiming the request is overly burdensome (without more), will likely sink that argument...as it did here.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Moore

Date:  June 9, 2017

Opinion:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11898214412289073870

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more