U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Randstad
765 F. Supp. 2d 734
D. Maryland2011Background
- EEOC seeks enforcement of an administrative subpoena to investigate Morrison's national origin and disability discrimination under Title VII and ADA.
- Randstad is a staffing agency with Maryland offices; the subpoena sought broad, company-wide data from 2005 onward.
- Morrison, Jamaican, allegedly could not read; Lenox terminated him for reading deficiencies, prompting Morrison's EEOC charge in 2007.
- Morrison's initial charge alleged national origin discrimination; disability claim was added later (Jan. 30, 2009).
- EEOC determined reasonable cause regarding disability discrimination; reconsideration and narrowed Maryland scope followed in 2010.
- This court denied enforcement of the subpoena to the extent it sought information beyond Morrison's Maryland assignments and beyond relevant, burdensome requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Morrison's disability claim relate back to the original charge? | EEOC: amendment relates back as part of same matter | Randstad: amendment does not relate back; time-barred | Disability claim untimely; does not relate back; jurisdiction lacking |
| Is the disability claim within EEOC's jurisdiction given timeliness? | EEOC contends relation back or timely amending under regulations | Randstad asserts untimeliness defeats jurisdiction | Jurisdiction lacking due to timeliness; not enforceable |
| Are Requests 3-4 (all Maryland assignments since 2005) relevant to Morrison's charge? | EEOC seeks data to investigate broader pattern related to literacy | Requests are overly broad and not relevant to Morrison's claim | Requests 3-4 not relevant to Morrison's charge; not enforceable |
| Are Requests 3-4 unduly burdensome? | EEOC asserts necessary to determine scope of discrimination | Producing data would be costly and time-consuming | Requests 3-4 unduly burdensome; declined enforceability |
Key Cases Cited
- EEOC v. Lockheed Martin Corp., Aero & Naval Sys., 116 F.3d 110 (4th Cir. 1997) (limited judicial review of subpoena enforcement)
- EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1984) (jurisdictional prerequisites for enforcement)
- EEOC v. City of Norfolk Police Dept., 45 F.3d 80 (4th Cir. 1995) (timeliness governs EEOC enforcement power)
- EEOC v. Karuk Hous. Auth., 260 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2001) (evidence must be relevant to any lawful purpose of agency)
- Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954 (4th Cir. 1996) (amendments alleging new theory do not relate back)
- Fairchild v. Forma Scientific, Inc., 147 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 1998) (added theory must relate to same subject matter, not merely the same facts)