More Relevant Than You Think: The EEOC’s Request for Hiring Materials Is Enforced on a Discharge Claim

At the end of last month, the Seventh Circuit enforced a subpoena issued by the EEOC, seeking an employer’s hiring materials in connection with the Commission’s investigation of a discriminatory discharge claim. EEOC v. Konica Minolta Bus. Solutions U.S.A., Inc., 2011 WL 1602064 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011). The employee alleged that he was disciplined and ultimately terminated because he was African-American, and during the EEOC’s investigation of his claim, the Commission learned a number of facts that generated cause for concern. Indeed, the EEOC discovered that only 6 of the defendant’s 120 sales employees were African-American, and all were assigned to the same territory in a predominantly black neighborhood. Id. at *1. This led the Commission to subpoena certain specified information about the employer’s hiring practices, designed to verify whether it intentionally limited African-American job opportunities to that particular area. The company refused to provide the information, saying it was irrelevant to the employee’s charge because he had only challenged the circumstances of his termination, not his hiring.

After the District Court enforced the subpoena, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court noted that the relevance standard governing the EEOC’s investigatory powers “is broader than the standard embodied in Fed. R. Evid. 401″ and is more similar to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Id. at *2. All that is required is “a realistic expectation, rather than an idle hope, that the information requested will advance [the Commission's] investigation of the charge.” Id. Because “the question [was] not whether [the employee] alleged discrimination in hiring, but instead whether information regarding [the employer's] hiring practices will ‘cast light’ on [his] race discrimination complaint,” the Seventh Circuit “had no trouble concluding that the information [sought] met that standard.” Id. at *3. The employer was ordered to respond to the subpoena.

While this case does not rubber-stamp all EEOC requests for hiring materials as relevant and enforceable, it does indicate that the standard is broader than employers (and their lawyers) would prefer. Careful consideration of this more permissive approach, therefore, should guide both employers’ responses to individual requests and their overall relationship with the EEOC.


Related content

  1. Discoverability of Secretly Recorded Conversations
  2. Federal Tax Returns Subject to Discovery
  3. Work Product Is Not a Sword and Shield

Comments