On April 3, 2017, the Supreme Court decided McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2008, Damiana Ochoa filed a sex discrimination charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against her former employer McLane Co., Inc., a supply-chain services company, when she failed a physical evaluation three times after returning from maternity leave. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched an investigation into Ochoa’s charge, but McLane declined the EEOC’s request for “pedigree information,” meaning names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers of those employees who had taken the physical evaluation. The EEOC then expanded its investigation into McLane’s operations nationwide and possible age discrimination, issuing subpoenas to McLane for pedigree information regarding these matters too. McLane refused to provide this information as well, and the EEOC then filed actions in federal district court to enforce the subpoenas issued regarding both Ochoa’s charge and the EEOC’s own age discrimination charge. The District Court quashed the subpoenas, finding the pedigree information irrelevant to the charges, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying a plenary or “de novo” standard of review, reversed. Other U.S. Courts of Appeals, however, apply a more deferential “abuse of discretion” standard in such situations, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split among the Courts of Appeals.
By a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the court held that a district court’s decision whether to enforce or quash a subpoena issued by the EEOC should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
And now, to discuss the case, we have Ellen Springer, an Associate at Baker Botts, LLP.
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
White v. Pauly - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Jenkins v. Hutton & Virginia v. LeBlanc - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Davila v. Davis & McWilliams v. Dunn - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc. Post-Decision SCOTUScast
California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Sessions v. Morales-Santana Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Maslenjak v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Ziglar v. Abbasi - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Hernandez v. Mesa - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Cooper v. Harris - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Murr v. Wisconsin - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Bravo-Fernandez v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Create your
podcast in
minutes
It is Free
Federalist Society Event Audio
Federalist Society Practice Groups Podcasts
Necessary & Proper Podcast
Federalist Society Faculty Division Podcasts
RTP’s Free Lunch Podcast