Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nestle Prepared Foods, No. 5:2011mc00358 - Document 22 (E.D. Ky. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: GRANTING EEOC's 20 MOTION for Reconsideration but the relief requested is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/26/12.(KJR)cc: COR

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner, v. NESTLE PREPARED FOODS, Respondent. ** ** No. 5:11-mc-358-JMH-REW MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ** ** ** This matter is before the Court upon the EEOC s motion for reconsideration of the Court s May 23, 2012 Order denying the EEOC s application to enforce subpoena no. IN-11-51S. [DE 20]. On June 11, 2012, Nestle filed a response in opposition to the EEOC s motion. [DE 21]. While the Court accepts the EEOC s invitation to consider its response to Nestle s objections to the Magistrate Judge s Recommended Disposition, the relief requested will be denied. The Court recognizes that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), the EEOC should have been given the opportunity to respond to Nestle s objections prior to this Court s issuance of a ruling. the Accordingly, the Court considers the points raised in EEOC s memorandum reconsideration. The in EEOC support contends of that its this motion for Court has overlooked important facts, including the sworn statements of Stephen Feamster, Nestle s Human Resource Manager, and Dr. Paul McLaughlin, the physician who examined charging party Michael Peel. Mr. Feamster affirmed that Nestle refers individuals for fitness-for-duty exams to various physicians in Sterling area, of which Dr. McLaughlin is one. the Mount Additionally, Dr. McLaughlin affirmed that he considered Mr. Peel to be his patient medical when he history patients. examined form as him, a and that standard he uses intake form a family for all These facts lie at the heart of what makes this a close case and, in ruling on this matter, the Court was mindful of the implication they create. One could assume that Nestle has referred other employees to Dr. McLaughlin and that he, in the course information. solely to of examining them, has obtained protected The subpoena does not seek information relating examinations performed by Dr. McLaughlin, however. Rather, it requests information relating to each physician to whom Nestle referred individuals for physical or medical examinations and each individual who submitted to a physical or medical examination. While the EEOC is correct that the investigation of possible systemic discrimination need not be based on multiple charges or explicit systemic allegations, here, there is no implication of systemic violations that would justify the scope of the EEOC s wide-reaching subpoena. If this subpoena were more narrowly drawn, perhaps the result would be 2 different. As worded, however, the subpoena seeks information beyond that which could reasonably shed light on Mr. Peel s charge and will not be enforced. Having Nestle s reviewed objections and to considered the the Magistrate EEOC s Judge s response to Recommended Disposition of this matter, IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC s motion for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED, but the relief requested is DENIED. This the 26th day of June, 2012. 3

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.