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.
By Assigning Cleaning Duties Not an Adverse Employment Action
A recent decision from the Middle District of Tennessee sheds light on the meaning of “adverse action” in the context of discrimination cases. See Pope v. General Dynamics Information Technologies, Inc., 2010 WL 1727850 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 27, 2010). The plaintiff, Marie Pope, sued her former employer under the Tennessee Human Rights Act for discrimination based on, among other things, disparate treatment. Pope claimed the employer discriminated against her by assigning her cleaning duties for a year, at the exclusion of Pope’s male co-workers. The employer admitted that its warehouse supervisor assigned Pope the duties, and told her, “you are a female and you are good at it.” However, the employer claimed Pope had asked for the duties.