United States Supreme Court

McLANE v. EEOC

“Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue a subpoena to obtain evidence from an employer that is relevant to a pending investigation. The statute authorizes a district court to issue an order enforcing such a subpoena. The question presented here is whether a court of appeals should review a district court’s decision to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena de novo or for abuse of discretion. This decision should be reviewed for abuse of discretion.”

 “ … A district court’s role in an EEOC subpoena enforcement proceeding, we have twice explained, is a straightforward one. See University of Pa., 493 U.S., at 191, 110 S.Ct. 577; Shell Oil, 466 U.S., at 72, n. 26, 104 S.Ct. 1621. A district court is not to use an enforcement proceeding as an opportunity to test the strength of the underlying complaint. Ibid. Rather, a district court should “ ‘satisfy itself that the charge is valid and that the material requested is “relevant” to the charge.’ ” University of Pa., 493 U.S., at 191, 110 S.Ct. 577. It should do so cognizant of the “generou[s]” construction that courts have given the term “relevant.” Shell Oil, 466 U.S., at 68–69, 104 S.Ct. 1621 (“virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against the employer”). If the charge is proper and the material requested is relevant, the district court should enforce the subpoena unless the employer establishes that the subpoena is “too indefinite,” has been issued for an “illegitimate purpose,” or is unduly burdensome. Id., at 72, n. 26, 104 S.Ct. 1621. See United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652–653, 70 S.Ct. 357, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950) (“The gist of the protection is in the requirement … that the disclosure sought shall not be unreasonable” (internal quotation marks omitted)).”

Reversed and remanded.

Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
Rachel P. Kovner, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Margo Pave, Assistant General Counsel, James M. Tucker, Attorney, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, DC, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, Irving L. Gornstein, Counselor to the Solicitor General, Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Noel J. Francisco, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Andrew M. Jacobs, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Tucson, AZ, William R. Peterson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Houston, TX, Allyson N. Ho, Ronald E. Manthey, John C. Sullivan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Dallas, TX, for Petitioner.
USSC 4/3/17 revised opinion by Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan. Ginsberg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part; 137 S.Ct. 1159, 129 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1825, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3131.

Read All Decisions

Mariko Yoshihara, CELA Legislative Counsel & Policy Director

The Legislature’s policy committees held dozens of hearings this month to debate and discuss the myriad of bills that were introduced this year. CELA’s legislative committee has been working diligently to support, oppose, and propose amendments to several of the key labor and employment bills. Specifically, we worked with Legal Aid at Work and the California Work and Family Coalition to move SB 63, our co-sponsored bill to expand parental leave rights in California, through the Judiciary Committee and Labor Committee hearings. The bill will be voted on by a fiscal committee next month before moving to the floor for a full vote by the Senate.

We have also been working closely with allies to try and defeat legislation that would substantially weaken Labor Code enforcement under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”). Two of those bills, AB 1429 and AB 1430, we were able to successfully pull from consideration for this year. The third bill, AB 281, was significantly narrowed so that the proposed measure would only extend the time period for an employer to cure violations brought under Labor Code Section 2699.3(c). CELA will continue to oppose this legislation and try to prevent its passage when it is heard in the Assembly Labor Committee early next month. And just last week, along with our labor allies, we were also able to defeat legislation that would have given employers an affirmative defense for a violation of the Labor Code if the employer had relied on an opinion letter from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement at the time of the violation.

We are also supporting and helping craft several key bills to advance workers’ rights in California, including: AB 1209, which would require companies with 250 or more employees to publish their company’s gender pay differentials on their website; AB 569, which would strengthen protections for women who are discriminated against because of their reproductive health decisions; AB 1008, which would “ban the box” on employment applications and limit inquiries into conviction histories; AB 450, which would help protect immigrant employees during federal immigration raids; and AB 263, which would prescribe meal and rest break rights for emergency medical workers.

For a full list of bills we are tracking, visit our Legislative Advocacy page or email mariko@cela.org.

Read Full Article