McLane Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n

2017-04-03

Headline: Labor-discrimination subpoenas: Court requires appeals courts to defer to district judges and review EEOC subpoena enforcement for abuse of discretion, affecting employers and federal workplace investigations nationwide.

Holding: The Court held that appeals courts must review a district court’s decision to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena for abuse of discretion, not with fresh, from-scratch review, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Real World Impact:

Limits appeals courts’ ability to reweigh factual relevance determinations.
Gives district judges more control over EEOC subpoena enforcement decisions.
May make it harder for employers to undo subpoenas on appeal.

Topics: employment discrimination, EEOC investigations, subpoenas and evidence, appeals court review

Summary

Background

A woman who worked for a supply-chain company said she was fired after failing a physical evaluation and filed a discrimination charge. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigated and sought basic test information plus "pedigree" details (names, Social Security numbers, addresses, phone numbers) from the employer. The employer refused and a district judge declined to enforce the subpoena for the pedigree information. The Ninth Circuit reversed, and the Supreme Court took the case to decide how an appeals court should review such enforcement decisions.

Reasoning

The core question was whether appeals courts should give fresh, full review or instead be deferential when reviewing a district court’s decision about an EEOC subpoena. The Court looked to longstanding appellate practice and practical considerations. It found a long history of deferential review dating back to similar labor statutes and concluded that district judges are better placed to handle fact-heavy questions about relevance and burden. The Court explained that abuse-of-discretion review still allows correction of legal mistakes but prevents appeals courts from reweighing factual determinations.

Real world impact

Appeals courts must now use an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing EEOC subpoena enforcement, which will limit second-guessing of district judges on relevance and burden. The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back so that the court of appeals can apply the proper, deferential standard; the Court did not decide whether the district court actually abused its discretion.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Ginsburg agreed on the standard but would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit, saying the district court made a legal error by requiring more than mere relevance to enforce the subpoena.