The NAM joined with the Equal Employment Advisory Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an amicus brief urging the Eighth Circuit to overturn a trial court ruling that authorized the EEOC to enforce an administrative subpoena that is not based on a valid charge of discrimination, and that broadly seeks information through a subpoena enforcement action that is not relevant to the charging party’s claims.
A single employee complained to the EEOC about alleged sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the company says she did not meet the performance requirements of the general manager position she sought. The EEOC sought a variety of information and documents from the company based on amended allegations that included a charge of class-wide discrimination.
Our brief argued that the new allegations fail to provide a “clear and concise statement of the facts” constituting the alleged violation and would authorize an open-ended audit of all of the company’s employment practices, in violation of statutory language designed to prevent the exercise of unconstrained investigative authority.
We also argued that the individual did not herself claim to be aggrieved by class-wide hiring discrimination, an essential element to an EEOC investigation in this case. The EEOC’s subpoena must be limited to the charges made and supported with facts by the complaining party.
On July 13, 2011, the Eight Circuit affirmed the district court's order enforcing the EEOC's broad subpoena. It found that the charging party had complied with all the statutory requirements, and the charge did not need more than an unsubstantiated belief that discrimination had occurred. It also found that the subpoena generally related to the charge of potential systemic gender discrimination. The ruling validates broad subpoena power at the EEOC, based on unsubstantiated claims.