U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. McLane Co.
804 F.3d 1051
9th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff: EEOC investigated Damiana Ochoa's Title VII charge that McLane discriminatorily required a physical strength test for employees returning from maternity leave; Ochoa failed the test and was terminated.
- EEOC sought nationwide data on all test takers in McLane’s grocery division: gender, job, test date, score, pedigree (name, SSN, address, phone), and reasons for termination when applicable.
- McLane produced most data but withheld pedigree information and reasons for termination (and replaced names/SSNs with employer-created ID numbers).
- EEOC issued an administrative subpoena; McLane refused and the EEOC sued to enforce.
- District court ordered production of non-pedigree test data but declined to compel pedigree information and reasons for termination; EEOC appealed.
- Ninth Circuit: held pedigree information relevant and remanded the termination-reasons issue for undue-burden analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance of pedigree (names, SSNs, contact info) to EEOC investigation | Pedigree is relevant because EEOC needs to contact test takers to investigate whether test use produced disparate treatment or pattern/practice discrimination | Pedigree not relevant at this investigative stage; other produced data suffice; privacy concerns | Court: Pedigree is relevant under §2000e-8(a); district court erred in refusing enforcement |
| Whether EEOC must show necessity/specific preliminary evidence before obtaining relevant records | EEOC need only show relevance, not particularized necessity | McLane argued EEOC should show specific need or threshold showing of systemic discrimination before getting pedigree | Court: Relevance threshold is broad; EEOC need not show necessity or pre-substantiate systemic discrimination |
| Relevance defeated because test was neutrally applied (precluding disparate-treatment inquiry) | EEOC: charge did not limit legal theory; neutral application allegation disputed; EEOC may investigate both disparate impact and treatment | McLane: test neutrally applied thus cannot show disparate treatment or pattern discrimination | Court: Charge is broad enough; neutral application is an allegation for investigation; pedigree may reveal differential application and is relevant |
| Reasons for termination: whether production is unduly burdensome | EEOC: reasons for termination for employees who took the test are relevant and not more onerous than other requested data | McLane: producing reasons for termination is unduly burdensome (earlier ADEA action showed HR system lacks triggering info) | Court: Reasons for termination are relevant; vacated district court’s denial and remanded for district court to decide undue-burden question in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Shell Oil Co. v. EEOC, 466 U.S. 54 (discusses EEOC investigatory scope and relevance standard)
- University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182 (EEOC need not show particularized necessity; Congress limited public disclosure to protect privacy)
- EEOC v. Kronos Inc., 620 F.3d 287 (charge need not allege legal theory; EEOC decides theories to investigate)
- Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 601 F.3d 289 (examining alleged discriminatory application of neutral policies)
- EEOC v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 719 F.2d 1426 (standards for judicial review of EEOC subpoena enforcement)
- EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (de novo review of subpoena enforcement issues)
- Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp., 204 F.3d 880 (party not precluded from litigating undue-burden issues in separate actions)