Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
669 F.3d 1154
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Graves and Palizzi filed ADA discrimination charges with the EEOC in 2007 after not being hired by BNSF following medical screenings.
- EEOC served notices of charge, and BNSF submitted position statements generally denying disability and offering other opportunities.
- EEOC issued a broad request for nationwide computerized personnel data covering 2006–present and later broadened the investigation to pattern and practice discrimination.
- BNSF challenged the scope as overly broad and sought to revoke/modify the subpoena; EEOC denied and district court enforcement was sought.
- The district court held the subpoena pervasively sought plenary discovery not tied to the specific charges; EEOC appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
- The court affirmed the district court, holding the information sought was not relevant to the charges and that the EEOC must show relevance to the charges under investigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the subpoena is relevant to Graves and Palizzi’s charges | EEOC argues broad data supports pattern/practice inquiry. | BNSF contends data unrelated to these charges is not relevant. | Not relevant to the charges; district court did not err. |
| Whether the EEOC could broaden the investigation without a specific pattern/practice allegation | EEOC claimed broad authority to pursue pattern/practice. | No explicit basis for expansion given no pattern allegation. | Expansion not warranted without relevance to the specific charges. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by treating the subpoena as plenary discovery | EEOC asserts a valid investigative tool with broad scope. | Subpoena seeks information not relevant to the charges. | District court did not abuse discretion; information not relevant. |
| Whether the EEOC properly identified the charges under investigation | EEOC attempts to argue pattern-based scope beyond two charges. | Charges under investigation were Graves and Palizzi only. | Charges limited to Graves and Palizzi; no basis to broaden reliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Penn. v. EEOC, 493 F. Supp. 182 (1990) (relevance requirement for subpoenas in EEOC investigations)
- Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984) (limits breadth of relevance, avoid nullity of requirement)
- EEOC v. Dillon Cos., 310 F.3d 1271 (10th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for EEOC subpoenas)
- EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) (EEOC authority to investigate under ADA/Title VII)
- Kronos Inc., 620 F.3d 287 (3d Cir. 2010) (pattern/practice inquiry based on disability discrimination (distinguishes facts))