EEOC V. McLane Co., No. 13-15126 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe EEOC brought a subpoena enforcement action against McLane where the EEOC was investigating a charge of sex discrimination filed against McLane by one of its former employees. At issue was whether the district court correctly held that some of the information sought by the subpoena was not relevant to the EEOC’s investigation. The court concluded that the district court erred by refusing to enforce the subpoena’s request for production of pedigree information where the information was relevant to the EEOC's investigation. In this case, the employee's charge alleged that McLane's use of the strength test discriminated on the basis of sex. To decide whether there is any truth to that allegation, the EEOC wanted to contact other McLane employees and applicants for employment who have taken the test to learn more about their experiences. For similar reasons, the district court erred when it held that pedigree information was irrelevant “at this stage” of the investigation. Finally, the court vacated the district court's order denying enforcement of the subpoena's request for the reasons for termination, and remanded so that the district court could rule on whether requiring McLane to produce that information would in fact be unduly burdensome.
Court Description: Subpoena / EEOC. The panel reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s order that granted in part and denied in part the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s request for enforcement of an administrative subpoena issued as part of an EEOC investigation of a sex discrimination claim. The panel held that the district court erred in refusing to compel production of pedigree information (name, social security number, last known address, and telephone number) of other applicants and employees who took a qualifying test because the information was relevant to the EEOC’s investigation. The panel vacated the district court’s order denying enforcement of the subpoena’s request for the reasons for termination of other employees, and remanded so that the district court could rule on whether requiring the employer to produce that information would in fact be unduly burdensome. Judge M. Smith concurred in the majority opinion but wrote separately to discuss the employer’s suggestion that it was justified in withholding its employees’ Social Security numbers to protect their privacy interests. Judge M. Smith noted that the EEOC’s insistence on obtaining Social Security numbers that could be used to steal an employee’s identity will endanger the very employees it sought to protect. EEOC V. MCLANE CO. 3
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 24, 2017.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.