Skip to main content

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Address Whether the EEOC Can Continue to Investigate After Issuing Right to Sue Letter


Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari in VF Jeanswear LP v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case that would have enabled the Court to break a circuit split over whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enables the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to continue to investigate alleged wrongdoing after issuing a right to sue letter.

In VF Jeanswear, the EEOC issued a subpoena that sought a “wide range of employment information” from the respondent, relating to the manufacturers supervisors, managers, and executive employees.  This subpoena came after a former employee filed a discrimination charge.  The district court found that the subpoenaed information was not relevant to the employee’s discharge but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that EEOC subpoenas (in relation to an investigation of discrimination) are enforceable so long as they seek information relevant to any of the allegations in a charge, not just those that directly affect a charging party.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that, under Title VII, the EEOC can continue to investigate claims of discrimination even after issuing a right to sue letter.  VF Jeanswear subsequently sought to have the United States Supreme Court hear the matter.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the Supreme Court’s denial of the writ of certiorari, writing that if the Supreme Court found that the issuance of a right to sue letter terminated the EEOC’s ability to investigate, the EEOC may be “impermissibly subjecting employers to time-consuming investigations.”  That reasoning could have led the Supreme Court to find that the EEOC was acting outside the scope of its authority, as provided by Congress in Title VII, when investigations continued after a right to sue letter was issued.  Of course, that is not even taking into account the split among circuits on the matter with the Seventh and Ninth Circuits holding that the EEOC has the power to keep investigating, while the Fifth Circuit has found that the plain text of Title VII prohibits this.  Had the Supreme Court taken up VF Jeanswear, we likely would have had clarity on the matter, as Justice Thomas argued.  For the time being, however, the split among circuits remains and the matter remains unsettled.


For a copy of the denial of the writ of certiorari:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-446_h3cj.pdf

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