Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1661
| 4th Cir. | 2011Background
- WSSC restructured its IT department, eliminating merit-system positions and creating non-merit ones to attract higher-skilled staff.
- The restructuring occurred in connection with the FY 2007 budget and involved budgetary approvals by WSSC commissioners and county councils.
- EEOC began investigating age discrimination after former employees filed suits and charges; it issued subpoenas for records related to the restructuring and training policies.
- WSSC refused to fully comply, claiming legislative immunity and privilege shield the requested materials because the restructuring touched budgetary and legislative processes.
- The district court ordered production after EEOC narrowed the subpoena to exclude privileged deliberations and motives behind the restructuring.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that at the preliminary stage the modified subpoena does not yet threaten legislative immunity or privilege.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EEOC's subpoena infringes legislative immunity. | WSSC argues the subpoena seeks testimony about legislative acts and motives. | EEOC contends the investigation targets administrative decisions, not legislative acts. | No premature bar to enforcement; subpoena remains permissible at this stage. |
| Whether legislative privilege applies to the EEOC's investigation at this stage. | WSSC asserts privilege shields information related to legislative approvals. | EEOC asserts privilege is limited and not triggered by current administrative records. | Privilege not yet invoked to defeat enforcement; investigation ongoing. |
| Whether the modified subpoena is limited to non-privileged, administrative documents. | WSSC claims the scope still risks privileged material about legislative processes. | EEOC narrowed the request to administrative records, avoiding privileged deliberations. | Modified subpoena appropriately focuses on administrative documents; enforceable. |
| Whether the case is premature to decide on privilege due to potential future developments. | Future testimony could require legislators' involvement, making enforcement improper now. | Premature to halt investigation; the court should adapt as facts develop. | Prematurity does not justify withholding enforcement at this stage. |
| Whether the EEOC's investigative authority under the ADEA extends to enforcement against a state-created agency. | WSSC emphasizes sovereign immunity barriers to enforcement actions. | EEOC may sue or investigate under ADEA against political subdivisions; enforcement authority exists. | EEOC retains authority to investigate and enforce; records may be compelled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burtnick v. McLean, 76 F.3d 611 (4th Cir.1996) (legislative privilege recognized to safeguard immunity implementation)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1951) (legislative immunity scope for legislators)
- Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1998) (extensive application of Speech or Debate Clause and legislative immunity)
- Alexander v. Holden, 66 F.3d 62 (4th Cir.1995) (distinguishes administrative vs. legislative acts in privilege analysis)
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1990) (recognition of evidentiary privileges in agency subpoenas)