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.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Packingham v. North Carolina - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
McLane Co. v. EEOC - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Hernandez v. Mesa - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Ziglar v. Abbasi - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Lee v. Tam - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Moore v. Texas - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
McCrory v. Harris and Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Beckles v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Salman v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Bosse v. Oklahoma - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Lynch v. Morales-Santana - Post-Argument 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