By Christopher J. DeGroff, Matthew J. Gagnon, and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.
As we reported in our recent Annual EEOC Report (found here), the EEOC prides itself on its aggressive litigation theories and strategies. But just one week into 2015, the EEOC’s envelope-pushing tactics have already been shot down twice. In EEOC v. Performance Food Group, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-01712 (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2015), the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied the EEOC’s efforts to impose harsh sanctions on an employer that the agency believed was late in complying with its discovery obligations. And in EEOC v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 13-13519 (11th Cir. Jan. 6, 2015), the EEOC failed yet again to enforce an overbroad subpoena after having lost on that issue on three separate occasions: first before the Magistrate Judge, then before the District Court Judge, and then again on appeal before an Eleventh Circuit panel.
If these decisions are any indication, it will be another year in which the agency pushes the limits of the legal envelope in terms of tactical advantage, leaving it to the Courts to police the boundaries of what is reasonable. Here is our take of these two early 2015 cases and what employers can learn from them:
EEOC v. Performance Food Group, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-01712 (D. Md. Jan. 6, 2015)
In EEOC v. Performance Food Group, Inc., the EEOC sought sanctions against a foodservice distribution company in a gender discrimination case for allegedly failing to meet discovery deadlines. Specifically, the EEOC argued that the company had failed to produce paper applications for some of its facilities and certain employee data that the agency had subpoenaed from the company’s third-party vendors. The company argued that sanctions were unwarranted because it had provided most of the requested information within the time frame set by the Court and had been acting in good faith to produce the remaining documents and information. According to the company’s filings, it was working to gather and produce all requested information and had kept the agency informed of its progress. The company also produced approximately 300,000 pages of additional documents along with and immediately after filing its response brief to the EEOC’s motion. The EEOC was unimpressed by these efforts and asked the Court to impose severe sanctions. In addition to asking the Court to require the company to pay the EEOC’s attorneys’ fees for the filing of the motion, it also requested that the Court impose a daily monetary penalty for each day that the company fails to produce the requested documents. The agency even criticized the company’s delayed production, arguing that the document “dumps” were disorganized and that they made it impossible to ascertain whether the company had complied with its discovery obligations.
The District Court of Maryland flatly rejected the EEOC’s motion. The Court acknowledged that the company’s document production was late, but concluded from its own review of the record that sanctions were not warranted. The Court cautioned the employer, however, noting that while it understood that the document production would be voluminous and would cover an extensive period of time and many different facilities, it still expected the company to comply with its discovery obligations in a timely manner. The Court also appeared to warn the EEOC, noting that in the case of anticipated delays in production, it expected that counsel would engage in an open and cooperative dialogue to resolve the dispute and would only bring it to the attention of the Court if it was necessary to do so.
Employers should read the Performance Food Group case as a cautionary tale: the EEOC can and will take unreasonable – and at times draconian – positions in discovery disputes, even in the face of reasonable efforts by an employer. This case highlights the EEOC’s troubling view that business records and evidence are ready-made for litigation; even information and records that were never contemplated to be produced in later government-initiated litigation.
EEOC v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 13-13519 (11th Cir. Jan. 6, 2015)
In EEOC v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., the Eleventh Circuit denied for the second time the EEOC’s attempt to enforce a subpoena against Royal Caribbean that could only charitably be called “overbroad.” This termination case arose out of a single charge of disability discrimination. The EEOC’s subpoena sought, among other things, a list of all employees who were discharged and applicants who were not hired, including relevant identifying information as well as employment applications and other related documents. At the District Court level, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the subpoena be denied because the information sought was not relevant to the charge and that compliance with the disputed portions of the subpoena would be unduly burdensome. The District Court affirmed and adopted that recommendation. The EEOC appealed in August, 2013. On November 6, 2014, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision. The EEOC petitioned for rehearing en banc on December 19, 2014. That petition was denied on January 6, 2015.
The Eleventh Circuit acknowledged that certain courts have construed the EEOC’s administrative subpoena power quite broadly. But the Court reasoned that it could not be construed so broadly as to make the requirement that the subpoena be relevant to the underlying charge a mere “nullity.” The court faulted the EEOC for not making it clear how the requested information bore on the subject matter of the individual complaint. This was especially true here, where the employer actually stipulated that it had terminated the charging party due to his medical condition. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that it would not be necessary to introduce statistical data to determine whether a facially neutral explanation for an adverse employment action was merely a pretext for discrimination. Nor did the court credit the EEOC’s argument that it should be entitled to expand its investigation to uncover other potential violations and victims of discrimination. Although the Court allowed that such information would be “related” to the charge, it would not countenance expanding the investigation to include information that is “related” but not necessarily “relevant” to the charge. This case joins several other instances (that can be reviewed here, here, and here) where the EEOC has doggedly pursued subpoenas. As reported here, the EEOC stepped up its enforcement actions in FY 2014, and we expect this trend to continue in 2015.
Implications For Employers
These decisions demonstrate that the EEOC is far from giving up on the aggressive litigation tactics that have defined EEOC litigation over the past few years. Although these are two favorable decisions for employers, the agency will undoubtedly win some of these disputes. Employers would be well served to keep abreast of these developments so that they do not fall victim to these types of strategies in the future.
Readers can also find this post on our EEOC Countdown blog here.