U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Akebono Brake Corporation
3:16-cv-03545
D.S.C.Mar 16, 2018Background
- Charge by Clintoria Burnett alleging Akebono revoked her job offer after learning her religious belief required wearing skirts instead of pants; EEOC sued under Title VII.
- Akebono defended by asserting Burnett’s accommodation (wearing skirts) would be unreasonable and create undue safety hardships in its West Columbia manufacturing facility.
- EEOC sought entry under Rule 34 to inspect and videotape limited areas (washer-inspection area, certain assembly locations, and connecting walkways) to evaluate Akebono’s safety/undue-hardship defense.
- The court previously denied a broader inspection without prejudice and allowed a narrowed motion to compel; parties litigated scope, videotaping, safety, confidentiality, and burden concerns.
- After weighing relevance and proportionality under Rules 26 and 34, the magistrate judge granted inspection narrowly: two EEOC counsel and a legal photographer may enter and take still photographs of the washer-inspection area for 60 minutes on a date of Akebono’s choosing before close of discovery; videotaping and broader access denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of facility inspection | Akebono put physical layout and safety at issue by asserting an undue-hardship safety defense; inspection will test that claim | Inspection is speculative because record lacks details about skirt length/material; discovery is a fishing expedition | Inspection is relevant because defendant’s safety defense places premises at issue; EEOC entitled to limited inspection |
| Proportionality and scope (areas/time/manner) | Inspection and videotaping needed to visualize machine movement and hazards; limited access is proportionate | Videotaping and broad access create safety, business disruption, confidentiality, and privacy burdens | Proportionality favors a narrowed inspection: still photography only, 60 minutes, washer-inspection area, two counsel + legal photographer, date chosen by Akebono |
| Videotaping vs. still photography and confidentiality | Videotaping captures motion and is important to show dynamic hazards | Videotaping poses greater safety and confidentiality risks; still photos suffice | Denied videotaping; allowed still photography only to mitigate burden and confidentiality risks |
Key Cases Cited
- Belcher v. Bassett Furniture, 588 F.2d 904 (4th Cir. 1978) (heightened scrutiny of premises inspections and balancing burdens against probative value)
- Eirhart v. Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., 93 F.R.D. 370 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (facility conditions relevant where employer defenses rely on physical job requirements)
- Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, 793 F.3d 404 (4th Cir. 2015) (discussing joint-employment doctrine and liability when employer attempts to hide behind staffing agency)