Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
295 F.R.D. 166
S.D. Ohio2013Background
- EEOC sues JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. under Title VII alleging class-wide discrimination against female employees based on call-queue assignments and skill data.
- Plaintiff sought discovery of skill login data showing how skills mapped to call queues and times employees logged in to the ACD system.
- Magistrate Judge previously ordered production of data from July 8, 2006, through December 31, 2009, with further issues about alleged purges and retention.
- Defendant allegedly purged or destroyed data from 2006–2007 and 2009 despite preservation notices and orders.
- Plaintiff later obtained 2009 data; defendant argued the data was not destroyed and raised meet-and-confer and certification issues under Rule 37 and local rules.
- Court grants sanctions against defendant for spoliation and denies defendant’s summary-judgment motion, with a permissive adverse-inference instruction to accompany trial if it proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural bar to sanctions motion | Sanctions motion not barred by prior order; exhaustion satisfied | Motion to sanction barred by Magistrate Judge’s order and certification requirements | Not barred; merits can be decided. |
| Merits of sanctions for spoliation | Destruction of 2007 data warrants sanctions | Purging was routine; no preservation breach | Sanctions warranted; deny merit-based summary judgment and grant permissive adverse inference. |
| Appropriate sanction and remedy | Severe sanctions necessary to restore truth | Less severe remedies sufficient | Deny summary judgment; provide jury with permissive adverse inference; address merits in subsequent orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaven v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 622 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 2010) (adverse inference with preservation failures and sanctions)
- Adkins v. Wolever, 554 F.3d 650 (6th Cir. 2009) (inherent power sanctions for spoliation; preserve integrity of process)
- Johnson v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., Tenn., 502 Fed.Appx. 523 (6th Cir. 2012) (three-part test for adverse inference; relevance of destroyed data)
- Toth v. Grand Trunk R.R., 306 F.3d 335 (6th Cir. 2002) (inherent sanctions authority; duties to disclose and preserve)