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.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Salman v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
Supreme Court Preview: What Is in Store for October Term 2016? 9-27-2016
Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Mathis v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Voisine v. United States - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Ross v. Blake - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Utah v. Strieff - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Lynch v. Arizona - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Dietz v. Bouldin - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
United States v. Bryant - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar - 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