Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tricore Reference Laboratories, 849 F.3d 929

EEOC subpoenaed TriCore for disability and pregnancy-discrimination information; TriCore refused to comply.
EEOC sought district-court enforcement; district court denied enforcement; judge found the EEOC’s intent unclear and limited relevancy.
EEOC appealed, arguing pattern-or-practice and comparator evidence would show broader discrimination and aid the Guadiana claim.
EEOC asserted relevancy under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8 and relied on its Compliance Manual to expand investigation.
Court held the district court did not abuse discretion; the subpoena requests were not shown to be relevant to the charge under investigation.
Key facts show Guadiana’s case involved a single-employee discrepancy; no firm pattern-practice basis was established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pattern-or-practice evidence supported enforcement	EEOC seeks pattern evidence via disability-request data	TriCore argues no charge broad enough for pattern	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion; pattern evidence not established
Whether comparator evidence supported enforcement	EEOC argues pregnancy data are relevant comparators	TriCore contends evidence not tied to Guadiana’s charge	Affirmed; pregnancy data not adequately relevant or narrowly tailored

EEOC v. Dillon Cos., 310 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2002) (deference to district court on subpoenas; relevancy burden)
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co., 669 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 2012) (pattern-or-practice evidence requires charges and explicit basis)
University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (U.S. 1990) (EEOC need not provide a specific reason beyond relevance; but relevancy still required)
Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984) (relevancy limited to charges under investigation; not a nullity)
General Telephone Co. of Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980) (broader investigation not permitted beyond the charge under investigation)