Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. City of Long Branch
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14151
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Lt. Lyndon Johnson (African‑American) filed a Title VII charge with the EEOC alleging race‑based disparate discipline by the City of Long Branch against him compared to six white comparator officers.
- EEOC subpoenaed Long Branch for disciplinary and personnel records for Johnson and the six comparators; Long Branch refused to produce comparator files without a confidentiality agreement and sent a “Notice of Motion to Quash” but did not file the administrative petition to revoke/modify the subpoena required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(b).
- EEOC moved in federal court to enforce the subpoena. A Magistrate Judge ordered production but barred EEOC from disclosing comparators’ files to Johnson, relying on EEOC v. Associated Dry Goods Corp.
- EEOC objected to the non‑disclosure portion and appealed to the District Court; the EEOC did not object below to the Magistrate Judge’s apparent exhaustion finding. The District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order.
- The Third Circuit found a controlling procedural error: the District Court treated the subpoena enforcement motion as nondispositive when under Third Circuit precedent (NLRB v. Frazier) such motions are dispositive and must be handled under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (report and recommendation with de novo review of objections).
- Because the District Court failed to review the exhaustion issue and misapplied the Magistrate Act framework, the Third Circuit vacated and remanded for proper district‑court proceedings; it instructed the district court to reconsider reliance on Associated Dry Goods and to use the confidentiality framework from EEOC v. Kronos if it reaches disclosure questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (EEOC) | Defendant's Argument (Long Branch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Long Branch waived ability to contest enforcement by not filing administrative petition to revoke/modify subpoena (exhaustion) | Long Branch failed to exhaust administrative remedies under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(b), so it waived objections and must produce records | Long Branch contends it properly objected and sought to quash; administrative petition not required or was excused | Not reached on merits — district court failed to treat enforcement motion as dispositive; remanded for proper consideration of exhaustion |
| Whether EEOC may disclose comparator employees’ personnel/disciplinary records to charging party | EEOC argues it may disclose investigative materials to charging party as needed for investigation/charge prosecution | Long Branch argues comparator files are confidential and should not be disclosed absent protective conditions or agreement | Not decided on merits; court instructed district court to reconsider Associated Dry Goods and, if reached, apply Kronos confidentiality framework on remand |
| Proper classification of subpoena enforcement motion under the Federal Magistrates Act | EEOC (and precedent) treat enforcement as dispositive requiring magistrate report and recommendation and de novo district review of objections | Long Branch proceeded under the order entered by magistrate; district court treated motion as nondispositive | Held for EEOC on procedural point: enforcement motions are dispositive per Frazier; District Court erred in treating it as nondispositive — vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Associated Dry Goods Corp. v. EEOC, 449 U.S. 590 (Sup. Ct.) (charging party is not "public" for certain disclosure limits in EEOC investigations)
- McLane Co. v. EEOC, 137 S. Ct. 1159 (Sup. Ct.) (standard of review for district court enforcement of administrative subpoenas)
- NLRB v. Frazier, 966 F.2d 812 (3d Cir.) (administrative subpoena enforcement is dispositive; magistrate must issue report and recommendation)
- EEOC v. Kronos, Inc., 620 F.3d 287 (3d Cir.) (framework for confidentiality orders in EEOC investigations)
- Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874 (3d Cir.) (district court must give "reasoned consideration" to magistrate report and recommendation; consequences of failing to object)