McLane Co. v. EEOC
The Court ruled that appeals courts must defer to trial judges' decisions about enforcing EEOC subpoenas, reviewing them only for abuse of discretion rather than starting over from scratch.
The decision resolves a split among the appeals courts, with only the Ninth Circuit previously reviewing these decisions without any deference, and sends this particular case back so the Ninth Circuit can redo its review under the correct, more deferential standard.
How it got here: A federal trial court refused to enforce the EEOC's subpoenas; the Ninth Circuit reversed after reviewing that decision from scratch; McLane asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the review standard.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Damiana Ochoa worked for eight years lifting and packing products for McLane Co. After maternity leave, she failed a physical evaluation three times and was fired. She filed a sex discrimination charge, and the EEOC's investigation expanded to look at McLane's nationwide practices and possible age discrimination. McLane refused to hand over employees' names and contact information, prompting the EEOC to seek subpoenas.
The question before the Court
When a company refuses to hand over an EEOC subpoena's requested records, should the appeals court double-check the trial judge's ruling from scratch, or defer to it?
Why it matters
Employers facing EEOC subpoenas, and the EEOC itself, will now see appeals courts give more weight to trial judges' calls on what records must be handed over and whether a subpoena is too burdensome. This makes it harder to overturn a trial judge's subpoena ruling on appeal, potentially speeding up EEOC investigations nationwide.
What changes now
The case goes back to the Ninth Circuit, which must now re-examine the trial court's refusal to enforce the subpoenas using the abuse-of-discretion standard instead of reviewing the decision from scratch. The appeals court may also consider McLane's arguments that the subpoena was too burdensome. This is a final ruling on the review standard, though the underlying subpoena dispute is not yet fully resolved.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether the trial court was actually right or wrong to refuse enforcing the subpoenas, nor did it rule on McLane's burden-related arguments. It only decided which review standard the Ninth Circuit must apply on remand.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent in part — Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ginsburg agreed that abuse-of-discretion is generally the right standard for reviewing EEOC subpoena decisions, but she would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit's judgment outright rather than sending the case back. She reasoned that the trial court's refusal to enforce the subpoena rested on a legal error — requiring the EEOC to show more than mere relevance — and legal errors are reviewed independently (de novo) even under an abuse-of-discretion framework, so remand was unnecessary.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court looked at two factors it traditionally uses to decide how closely an appeals court should scrutinize a trial judge's decision: the long-standing historical practice of appeals courts, and which court is functionally better positioned to make the call.
- On history, the Court traced how Title VII borrowed its subpoena rules from the National Labor Relations Act, and found that for decades before and after that borrowing, virtually every appeals court reviewed similar subpoena decisions only for abuse of discretion — meaning it would only overturn the trial judge's decision if it was clearly unreasonable.
- On functional capacity, the Court reasoned that deciding whether evidence is relevant to an investigation, and whether producing it would be too burdensome, are fact-heavy, case-specific judgment calls that trial judges are better equipped to make than appeals courts reviewing a cold record.
- The Court rejected the argument, offered by a lawyer appointed to defend the Ninth Circuit's approach, that because a trial judge's task is simply to check a subpoena's legal validity, no real discretion is involved — the Court explained that deferential review can rest on practical, functional reasons rather than requiring open-ended discretion.
- The Court also rejected the argument that deferential review would conflict with rules telling trial judges to read the word 'relevant' generously in the EEOC's favor, or that the Fourth Amendment's role in subpoena law demands stricter appellate review, noting that many subpoena-related decisions touching the Fourth Amendment are still reviewed deferentially.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Shell Oil (466 U. S. 54)
The Court relies on Shell Oil's rule that 'relevant' evidence for EEOC subpoenas is read generously.