859 F.3d 375
6th Cir.2017Background
- Sinisa Matovski, a UPS operations manager with a disability, filed EEOC charges alleging UPS disclosed his confidential medical/leave information on a company Health & Safety intranet and retaliated after he complained.
- Matovski amended his charge to allege other employees’ medical information had been similarly disclosed, suggesting a broader confidentiality breach.
- The EEOC issued an administrative subpoena seeking (relevant here) the SCS-CSI H&S report (Excel/CSV), the RiskConsul Oracle database extract, and the company’s “privacy case” criteria and related documents.
- UPS objected, arguing the requests were irrelevant, overbroad (including data from other regions and employees not similarly situated), and unduly burdensome; it sought modification of the subpoena.
- The EEOC sought enforcement in federal district court; the district court ordered UPS to comply with the first three requests. UPS appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the EEOC’s requests were relevant to the ADA confidentiality charge and not shown to be unduly burdensome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of databases (SCS-CSI & RiskConsul) | Databases directly store/disclose medical info and will show breaches and patterns | Requests go beyond Matovski (other regions/employees) and his data may not be in new database | Relevant; databases may reveal pattern/context for ADA confidentiality claim; subpoena enforced |
| Relevance of "privacy case" criteria | Criteria reveal what UPS considered confidential and how it classified privacy cases | Request is temporally unlimited and overbroad | Relevant; criteria illuminate company knowledge/practices about confidentiality; subpoena enforced |
| Need for similarly situated employees | EEOC limited to similarly situated comparators | Evidence must concern similarly situated employees only | Rejected; investigatory relevancy is broad and need not be limited to similarly situated employees |
| Undue burden defense | EEOC can obtain electronic exports; limited burden shown | Production would be unduly burdensome | Rejected; UPS failed to demonstrate material burden and parties agreed electronic transmission was feasible |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., 750 F.2d 40 (6th Cir. 1984) (subpoena enforcement is a summary process; investigatory relevance standard)
- EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., 261 F.3d 634 (6th Cir. 2001) (generous construction of relevancy; patterns beyond specific charge may be probative)
- EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984) (broad relevancy standard for EEOC investigations)
- McLane Co. v. EEOC, 137 S. Ct. 1159 (2017) (standard of review: district court subpoena enforcement reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- EEOC v. Cambridge Tile Mfg. Co., 590 F.2d 205 (6th Cir. 1979) (EEOC may subpoena practices that shed light on alleged discrimination)
- Blue Bell Boots, Inc. v. EEOC, 418 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1969) (patterns of practice can justify inferences about discriminatory motivation)
- EEOC v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 26 F.3d 44 (6th Cir. 1994) (administrative subpoena not enforceable if requests are irrelevant or unduly burdensome)
- Univ. of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (1990) (courts consider burden in subpoena enforcement analysis)