Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Fourth Circuit Reverses District Court's Denial of EEOC Subpoena Authority Related to Undocumented Worker's Discrimination Claim
Practical Law Legal Update w-002-1784 (Approx. 5 pages)
Fourth Circuit Reverses District Court's Denial of EEOC Subpoena Authority Related to Undocumented Worker's Discrimination Claim
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 04 May 2016 • USA (National/Federal) |
In EEOC v. Maritime Autowash, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a federal district court erred by denying the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) application for subpoena enforcement in a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) discrimination complaint brought by an undocumented worker.
On April 25, 2016, in EEOC v. Maritime Autowash, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a federal district court erred by denying the EEOC's application for enforcement of a subpoena in a Title VII discrimination complaint filed by an undocumented worker. The Fourth Circuit rejected the employer's argument that the employee's valid and viable claim is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the EEOC's subpoena authority. The Court held the EEOC is not required to demonstrate that it has a valid cause of action or remedies under Title VII. Even if it was later established that the worker's claim was invalid due to his undocumented status, at this early stage of the matter the EEOC retained subpoena authority. ( (4th Cir. 2016).)
Background
An undocumented worker employed by Maritime, a car washing company, filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging Maritime discriminated against him in violation of Title VII. The EEOC subpoenaed information from Maritime related to the allegations. When Maritime did not provide any documents requested by the EEOC, the agency sought enforcement of the subpoena in federal district court. The district court denied the EEOC's application.
On appeal, Maritime relied on the fact (conceded by the EEOC) that the worker was an undocumented alien and lacked proper work authorization. According to Maritime:
- The worker lacked a valid cause of action or remedy under Title VII.
- A valid cause of action under Title VII is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the EEOC's subpoena authority.
Outcome
The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the EEOC's application, holding that the subpoena was enforceable because the EEOC:
- Is not obligated to demonstrate a valid cause of action or remedies under Title VII when subpoenaing information from an employer.
- Must only show that:
- it has an arguable or plausible basis for jurisdiction; and
- its investigative authority is not plainly lacking.
- Has a plausible basis for jurisdiction in this case since:
- nothing in Title VII explicitly bars undocumented workers from filing Title VII complaints; and
- the worker's discrimination claim was based on grounds protected by Title VII.
The Fourth Circuit noted that:
- The EEOC has authority to issue subpoenas and request that courts enforce its subpoenas (see EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 63 (1984); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-9)).
- Court review of the EEOC's subpoena authority:
- involves looking solely at whether the EEOC has jurisdiction to conduct an investigation; and
- does not involve addressing the underlying discrimination claim on its merits.
- Unlike cases Martime relied on, Maritime is not claiming the EEOC's:
- charge is not under oath; or
- subpoena is lacking information or is untimely.
- A US Supreme Court decision and another Fourth Circuit decision relied on by Maritime for the proposition that the EEOC does not have authority to investigate charges brought by undocumented aliens were not controlling in this case because those two cases:
- did not involve the EEOC's subpoena authority; and
- were not decided at the early investigation stage.
Practical Implications
The Fourth Circuit's decision in Maritime sends a message to employers in the circuit that they should use caution when refusing to comply with an EEOC subpoena on jurisdictional grounds. Employers may be required to produce the requested information even if they will eventually use a worker's undocumented status as a defense.