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,...
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 i...
Post a Comment
Read more

What I've Been Reading This Week

Recently, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Commissioner, Chai Feldblum, had her re-nomination on the brink, after Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee took steps to block it .  Readers might have heard that late last week, Commissioner Feldblum's re-nomination quietly slipped away and she tweeted out a thank you to supporters and friends, acknowledging that her time at the EEOC was over.  While there has not been much in the way of a further update in regard to that ongoing saga, we wait to see how things will play out at the EEOC, now that it has lost a quorum until additional Commissioners are confirmed by the Senate. For the time being, there are other developments for readers to review this week.  In particular, I call attention to the article on managing a wage & hour audit by the Department of Labor as well as steps an employer can take to better ensure compliance with the ADA. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. ...
Post a Comment
Read more