FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
February 27, 2012
PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
TENTH CIRCUIT
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 11-1121
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA
FE RAILROAD, n/k/a BNSF Railway
Company,
Defendant - Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-03008-JLK)
Gail Coleman (P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Lorraine C. Davis, Assistant
General Counsel, and Daniel T. Vail, Esq. of U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Office of General Counsel, with her on the briefs),
Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff - Appellant.
Bryan Neal (and Andrew D. Ringel of Hall & Evans, L.L.C., with him on the
brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendant - Appellee.
Before KELLY, MURPHY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.
KELLY, Circuit Judge.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) appeals from
the judgment of the district court declining to enforce an administrative subpoena
against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, now known as Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”). On appeal, the EEOC argues
that the district court abused its discretion because it “applied erroneous legal
principles and ignored record evidence.” Aplt. Br. 16. Our jurisdiction arises
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
Background
Gregory A. Graves and Thomas A. Palizzi filed ADA discrimination
charges with the EEOC in February and October 2007, respectively. 1 R. AA15-
16, AA24-25. Each man alleged discrimination based on a perceived disability
after not being hired by BNSF (as a Conductor or Conductor Trainee) following a
conditional offer of employment and a medical screening procedure. Id. The
EEOC served BNSF with notice of each charge within three days of receiving the
charge, 1 R. AA17, AA26, and BNSF timely returned position statements
regarding each charge, 1 R. AA19-23, AA28-32. In general, BNSF’s position was
that it rescinded the offers based on the medical requirements and safety concerns
incident to the Conductor position, that it did not view either applicant as
“disabled,” and that both applicants were free to apply for other positions within
BNSF for which they were qualified. 1 R. AA19-23, AA28-32.
On February 2, 2009, the EEOC issued a letter to BNSF requesting “any
-2-
computerized or machine-readable files . . . created or maintained by you . . .
during the period December 1, 2006 through the present that contain electronic
data about or effecting [sic] current and/or former employees . . . throughout the
United States.” 1 R. AA33-34. BNSF responded on February 17, indicating that
it “utilized a third party web based applicant tracking system” and explaining how
both applicants and BNSF used that system. 1 R. AA35-36. Between February
17 and March 27, BNSF and the EEOC apparently communicated by phone, see 1
R. AA37, and BNSF sent the EEOC a letter on March 27 challenging the scope of
the EEOC’s investigation and requesting documentation in support of a broader
investigation, 1 R. AA37-39. Roughly two weeks later, on April 10, the EEOC
served its subpoena on BNSF. 1 R. AA40-43. Along with that subpoena, the
EEOC sent BNSF a letter explaining that the EEOC had broadened its
investigation from the charges filed by Mr. Graves and Mr. Palizzi to include
“pattern and practice discrimination,” thus warranting the demand for nationwide
information. 1 R. AA44. The EEOC did not explain why, or on what basis, it
was expanding its investigation. BNSF filed its petition to revoke or modify the
subpoena with the EEOC on April 20, 2009, 1 R. AA45-52; the EEOC issued a
final determination denying that petition on June 8, 2010, and ordered BNSF to
comply with the subpoena as served within twenty days, 1 R. AA60-76.
BNSF did not comply with the administrative subpoena, and the EEOC
applied to the district court for enforcement of the subpoena on December 13,
-3-
2010. 1 R. AA4-7. With its application to the district court, the EEOC included
an affidavit explaining that the EEOC was in possession of four similar
complaints against BNSF: one each from Kansas, Minnesota, Texas, and
Wyoming. 1 1 R. AA11-13. The record suggests that the EEOC never provided
that information to BNSF before applying to the district court. The district court
discharged the EEOC’s show cause order and sustained BNSF’s refusal to comply
with the subpoena on February 2, 2011, stating:
The administrative subpoena is pervasive, and it seeks plenary
discovery. There are no allegations of a pattern and practice. The
demand for data on a nation-wide basis with two individual claims
involving only applicants in Colorado is excessive. And while wide
deference to administrative inquiries and investigations -- wide
deference to the scope of the subpoenas is given, it does not transcend
the gap between the pattern and practice investigation and the private
claims that have been shown here.
1 R. AA145.
Discussion
We review a district court’s ruling on an EEOC subpoena for an abuse of
discretion. EEOC v. Dillon Cos., 310 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2002). The
statute granting the EEOC authority to investigate charges of discrimination
1
The affidavit states that the EEOC possessed five additional charges
supporting five other cases, 1 R. AA11, but proceeded to summarize only four
additional charges, 1 R. AA11-13. The EEOC also explained, for the first time,
that the same Medical Review Officer who rescinded Mr. Graves’s and Mr.
Palizzi’s offers apparently played a role in at least three of these four charges.
-4-
states, in relevant part, that the EEOC may access “any evidence of any person
being investigated” so long as that evidence “relates to unlawful employment
practices . . . and is relevant to the charge under investigation.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-8(a). The EEOC has the same authority to investigate charges under the
ADA as it has under Title VII. EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 285
(2002) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (1994)). While the Supreme Court has
described the relevance requirement in § 2000e-8(a) as “not especially
constraining,” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 68 (1984), the Court also has
explained that courts should not construe the relevance requirement so broadly as
to “render[] that requirement a nullity,” id. at 69. Thus, “when a court is asked to
enforce a Commission subpoena, its responsibility is to ‘satisfy itself that the
charge is valid and that the material requested is “relevant” to the charge . . . .’”
Univ. of Penn. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 191 (1990) (quoting Shell Oil Co., 466
U.S. at 72 n.26).
The district court concluded that the information sought by the EEOC was
not relevant to the charges under investigation. The EEOC first argues that the
district court ignored record evidence because all six charges, taken together,
warrant an investigation into an apparent pattern or practice of discrimination by
BNSF. We disagree.
The EEOC is entitled only to evidence that is “relevant to the charge[s]
under investigation.” The subpoena focuses on the charges filed by Mr. Graves
-5-
and Mr. Palizzi. Nowhere in the document is there any reference to any other
charge—by way of a reference to any other charging party, an additional charge
number, or anything else—that might indicate that an additional charge is at
issue. The EEOC did explain, in its cover letter, that: “Part of the Commission’s
request addresses information that relates to pattern and practice discrimination.
The EEOC is providing this notice of its intentions to broaden this investigation
under the authority granted by the statute.” 1 R. AA44. But this statement does
not identify the statute to which it refers, it does not constitute a “charge” of
discrimination, and it conveys no basis for expanding the investigation. We
conclude that “the charge[s] under investigation” were the charges filed by Mr.
Graves and Mr. Palizzi, and it is against those charges that the relevance of any
information sought by the EEOC must be measured. The EEOC should not wait
until it applies to the district court to supply justification or evidence that should
have been provided during the administrative enforcement phase, and the EEOC
has not explained how or why the district court was required to credit its
summaries of other charges filed against BNSF. 2
2
BNSF likely was aware of the other charges, as the EEOC is required by
statute to send a notice of any charge filed against an employer within ten days of
receiving a charge. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). But BNSF had no way of knowing
which other charge(s), if any, the EEOC was considering as additional support for
the investigation at issue. Furthermore, the EEOC never submitted the other
charges to the district court; rather, it provided summaries of those charges. 1 R.
AA11-13. Even if the other charges had any bearing on the relevance of the
information sought by the EEOC, the district court could not have appropriately
weighed the significance of those charges without having them in evidence.
-6-
We also note that the EEOC attempts to justify an incredibly broad request
for information—how BNSF keeps track of every current and former employee,
across the country, since 2006—as necessary to create “a carefully-tailored
request (e.g., in terms of position or geography) for substantive information about
the possible pattern or practice of disability discrimination (i.e., about the actual
employment decisions or policies at issue).” Aplt. Reply Br. 14. The EEOC
further explains that, “[i]f a pattern or practice of disability discrimination at
BNSF exists, the discrimination Graves and Palizzi allegedly suffered would
appear to be a part of it.” Id. Any act of discrimination could be part of a pattern
or practice of discrimination, but not every charge of discrimination warrants a
pattern or practice investigation. As the Supreme Court explained in Shell Oil
Co., we should not construe relevance so broadly as to render its requirement a
nullity. 466 U.S. at 69.
The EEOC argues that the district court erroneously required it to
demonstrate an allegation of pattern or practice discrimination before it may
conduct an investigation into the same. Aplt. Br. 21-22. We disagree. The
district court used the phrase “pattern and practice” twice. The district court first
acknowledged that no such allegation had been made: “There are no allegations of
a pattern and practice.” 1 R. AA145. It then concluded that “wide deference to
the scope of [EEOC] subpoenas . . . does not transcend the gap between the
pattern and practice investigation and the private claims that have been shown
-7-
here.” Id. Neither this acknowledgment nor this conclusion misstates the law,
and the district court did not abuse its discretion by stating either.
The EEOC next argues that the district court erroneously interpreted the
EEOC’s subpoena as seeking plenary discovery. Aplt. Br. 25-26. In reality,
though, the EEOC did seek plenary discovery: insofar as the information sought
by the EEOC was not “relevant to [a] charge under investigation,” 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-8(a), the EEOC had no jurisdiction or power to seek it. We do not think,
as the EEOC argues, that the district court misunderstood the meaning of plenary
discovery as it applies to the EEOC.
The EEOC finally cites a variety of cases for the proposition that a single
allegation of discrimination may warrant a pattern or practice investigation. Aplt.
Br. 29-38. We are not convinced. Of the cases cited by the EEOC, only EEOC v.
Kronos Inc. involved a claim of disability discrimination, and that case turned on
company-wide use of a test that allegedly facilitated discrimination based on
disability. 3 See 620 F.3d 287, 297 (3d Cir. 2010). McAlester v. United Air
Lines, Inc. had almost nothing to do with the EEOC, 851 F.2d 1249, 1256 (10th
Cir. 1988) (the plaintiff had filed a charge of racial discrimination with the
EEOC, but the EEOC found no racial discrimination), and the cited section
3
The EEOC argues that, because it has evidence that a single Medical
Officer eliminated candidates for various positions based on perceived
disabilities, this case is factually similar to Kronos Inc. Aplt. Br. 31-34. We
reject this argument because only the charges filed by Mr. Graves and Mr. Palizzi
were “the charge[s] under investigation.”
-8-
pertains to expert statistical analyses, id., which are not at issue here. The other
cases involved allegations of national origin discrimination, Circle K Corp. v.
EEOC, 501 F.2d 1052, 1054 (10th Cir. 1974), a pattern or practice of
discrimination, Joslin Dry Goods Co. v. EEOC, 483 F.2d 178, 180 (10th Cir.
1973), and/or racial discrimination, id.; EEOC v. Konica Minolta Bus. Solutions
U.S.A., Inc., 639 F.3d 366, 367 (7th Cir. 2011). And while the Seventh Circuit
permitted the EEOC to conduct what amounted to a pattern or practice
investigation based on an individual allegation of racial discrimination, that
decision is distinguishable for at least two reasons: first, the court also explained
that racial discrimination “is by definition class discrimination,” 639 F.3d at 369
(internal quotation marks omitted), and second, the EEOC sought information
pertaining to other offices in the same metropolitan area, id. at 368, rather than
information pertaining to operations nationwide. Perhaps the EEOC would have
been entitled to information relating to other positions and offices in Colorado;
but that is not the case before us.
Nothing prevents the EEOC from investigating the charges filed by Mr.
Graves and Mr. Palizzi, and then—if it ascertains some violation warranting a
broader investigation—expanding its search. Alternatively, nothing prevents the
EEOC from aggregating the information it possesses in the form of a
Commissioner’s Charge. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). But nationwide
recordkeeping data is not “relevant to” charges of individual disability
-9-
discrimination filed by two men who applied for the same type of job in the same
state, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that
conclusion.
AFFIRMED.
- 10 -