Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sterling Jewelers Inc.
1:11-cv-00938
| W.D.N.Y. | Sep 23, 2013Background
- Thielker filed a charge of age and sex discrimination against Sterling in 2008, prompting EEOC investigations.
- A 2007 Counseling Report suggested pay discussions could be restricted, and Thielker commented on gender pay discrimination.
- EEOC served a 2010 Subpoena seeking policy and disciplinary records regarding pay discussions; Sterling claimed no such policy existed.
- EEOC sought 2012 Subpoena for broader pay-discussion data; Sterling produced some documents but withheld others, leading to this enforcement motion.
- EEOC contends the 2012 Subpoena seeks material relevant to Sterling’s pay-discussion policy; Sterling argues burdens and relevance beyond the Thielker charge.
- Magistrate Judge McCarthy recommended partial enforcement: certain requests narrowed and others enforced in full, with burden and scope considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are 2012 and 2010 subpoenas duplicative? | EEOC argues 2012 broadens scope to test policy truthfulness. | Sterling says 2012 repeats 2010 and should be resolved by extending prior order. | Not duplicative; 2012 seeks broader, light-on-policy information. |
| Is the 2012 Subpoena relevant to the Thielker charge? | Pay-discussion data relevant to potential policy and discrimination. | Some requests reach beyond the Thielker charge and are not relevant. | Pay-discussion information is relevant; broader requests require narrowing. |
| Was the 2012 Subpoena issued for a legitimate purpose? | Purpose to illuminate Sterling’s pay-policy and potential discrimination. | Questionable given separate litigation; may be used for collateral purposes. | Yes, issued for legitimate purpose tied to the charge and broader context. |
| Would compliance with the 2012 Subpoena unduly burden Sterling? | Costs and burden justified by scope and size of Sterling. | Manual review of 57,000 employees is burdensome and costly. | No undue burden established; outside vendor use and context reduce burden concerns. |
| Should the EEOC be awarded costs? | EEOC seeks costs for motion. | Costs should be awarded to EEOC if prevailing. | EEOC's costs denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 587 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2009) (agency must show legitimate purpose, relevance, possession, and proper procedure for enforcement)
- EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (Supreme Court 1984) (broad interpretation of relevance in EEOC investigations)
- EEOC v. Kronos Inc., 620 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2010) (investigation may unfold to broader discriminatory practices during a reasonable inquiry)
- EEOC v. General Electric Co., 532 F.2d 359 (4th Cir. 1976) (charge provides jurisdictional springboard to investigate broader discrimination)
- Cambridge Tile Manufacturing Co., 590 F.2d 205 (6th Cir. 1979) (investigative breadth allowed in EEOC subpoenas to uncover discrimination)