Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03457/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03457-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Technocrest Systems
Appellee
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_______________

 No. 05-3322

_______________

United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission,

Appellee,

v.

Technocrest Systems, Inc.,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

_______________

Appeals from the United States

 No. 05-3457 District Court for the

_______________ Western District of Missouri.

United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission,

Appellant,

v.

Technocrest Systems, Inc.,

Appellee.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335
-2-

________________

Submitted: April 21, 2006

 Filed: May 26, 2006 

________________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

Technocrest Systems, Inc. (“Technocrest”) appeals the district court’s partial

enforcement of an administrative subpoena issued by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in furtherance of an investigation of national

origin discrimination. The EEOC cross-appeals the district court’s partial denial of

the subpoena. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand to the district court for

proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

I. BACKGROUND

The EEOC issued the administrative subpoena as part of its investigation of

charges of discrimination brought by employees of Technocrest. Technocrest, a

company providing computer repair and system analysis services, is based in

Missouri and employs approximately 100 technical employees. According to

Technocrest, during the relevant period, all its technical employees were Filipino and

present in the United States under non-immigrant H-1B visas.

In 2003, six technical employees of Technocrest working as electronics

engineers, system analysts, or field service representatives filed with the EEOC

charges of national origin discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335
-3-

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. These six charging parties charged that

Technocrest illegally discriminated against them and Filipino employees as a class

based on their Filipino national origin when they received less favorable treatment

than promised after Technocrest recruited them from the Philippines to work in the

United States. Specifically, the charging parties allege that they and Technocrest’s

Filipino employees as a class were “subjected to wages less than or equal to the

minimum wage, intimidated, and treated to less favorable terms and conditions of

employment than promised.”

During the course of its investigation, the EEOC issued an administrative

subpoena to Technocrest in March 2004. The portions of the subpoena that are

disputed include requests for: (1) documents that show the name, immigrant status

during employment, dates of employment, total actual compensation for each pay

period, work history, and present work status for each person who worked as an

electronics engineer, system analyst, or field service representative for any length of

time between January 1, 2001 and the present (“work history information”); (2)

copies of all documents submitted to and received from the Department of Labor

(“DOL”) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) during the years

2001 through 2003 (“DOL and INS documents”); and (3) the complete contents of

all personnel files and records pertaining to each Filipino employee present under an

H-1B visa and employed at any time between January 2001 and the present

(“personnel files”).

After Technocrest refused to comply with these portions of the subpoena, the

EEOC brought enforcement proceedings in the district court. Following briefing

from the parties and a telephonic hearing, the district court issued an order partially

enforcing the subpoena. First, the district court ordered enforcement of the request

for work history information for the six charging parties only. However, the court

also ordered Technocrest to provide work history information in spreadsheet form for

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335
1

The district court also found that Technocrest had “proffered sufficient

evidence to demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome.” On appeal,

Technocrest asserts that it had raised the issue of compliance being burdensome only

with respect to the request for work history information. Because the EEOC does not

appeal the district court’s partial enforcement of the work history information request

and Technocrest admits that producing DOL and INS documents for all employees

would not be burdensome, we need not address the burden on Technocrest of

responding to the subpoena.

-4-

all other employees in the same three categories of jobs as the six charging parties

(hereinafter, “all employees”). Second, the district court ordered enforcement of the

request for DOL and INS documents for only the six charging parties. Third, the

district court similarly ordered enforcement of the subpoena with respect to its request

for personnel files, again limiting the enforcement to the six charging parties. The

district court stated in its order that the quashed requests were not relevant to the

charges brought by the six charging parties.1

 After supplemental briefing, the district

court reaffirmed its order enforcing in part and quashing in part the subpoena.

On appeal, Technocrest contends that the district court erred in enforcing the

subpoena’s demand for work history information for the six charging parties, work

history information in spreadsheet form for all employees, and DOL and INS

documents for the six charging parties. The EEOC cross-appeals the district court’s

order to the extent it quashed the request for DOL and INS documents and personnel

files with respect to all employees.

II. DISCUSSION

We review the decision of the district court to enforce the EEOC’s

administrative subpoena for abuse of discretion. EEOC v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 261

F.3d 634, 638 (6th Cir. 2001); cf. Pointer v. DART, 417 F.3d 819, 821 (8th Cir. 2005)

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335
-5-

(reviewing orders quashing a subpoena pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 for abuse of

discretion). We also apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing relevancy

determinations. Id.

The EEOC is required to investigate a charge of discrimination to determine

whether there is reasonable cause to believe that the employer engaged in an unlawful

employment practice, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), and may issue subpoenas in connection

with its investigation, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-9 (granting the EEOC the same investigative

powers as those given to the National Labor Relations Board in 29 U.S.C. § 161).

The EEOC is entitled to “any evidence of any person being investigated or proceeded

against that relates to unlawful employment practices covered by [Title VII] and is

relevant to the charge under investigation.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(a) (emphasis

added). “Since the enactment of Title VII, courts have generously construed the term

‘relevant’ and have afforded the [EEOC] access to virtually any material that might

cast light on the allegations against the employer.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S.

54, 68-69 (1984); see also United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 652 (1950)

(stating that the information sought by an investigating agency must be “reasonably

relevant”); Emerson Elec. Co. v. Schlesinger, 609 F.2d 898, 905 (8th Cir. 1979) (“In

order to effectuate the purposes of the Civil Rights Act, . . . the statutory provisions

authorizing EEOC investigations must be read to give the EEOC broad investigatory

power.”). If the EEOC shows that the investigation is for a legitimate purpose and

the requested documents are relevant to the investigation, the EEOC is entitled to the

documents subpoenaed unless the subpoenaed party “demonstrates that judicial

enforcement of the subpoena would amount to an abuse of the court’s process.”

EEOC v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 775 F.2d 928, 930-31 (8th Cir. 1985).

Technocrest argues that work history information for the six charging parties

and a spreadsheet containing work history information for all employees are

irrelevant because all employees were not similarly situated, but rather were hired at

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335
-6-

different times, worked in 65 locations for different supervisors and had varying wage

arrangements. Technocrest opposes the request for DOL and INS documents for the

six charging parties on the basis that immigration status and citizenship are irrelevant

to national origin discrimination. Technocrest relies on Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co.,

414 U.S. 86, 89 (1973), which held with respect to Title VII, “Congress did not intend

the term ‘national origin’ to embrace citizenship requirements.” However, the

Supreme Court also recognized in Espinoza that in some instances “a citizenship

requirement might be but one part of a wider scheme of unlawful national-origin

discrimination” and that Title VII “prohibits discrimination on the basis of citizenship

whenever it has the purpose or effect of discriminating on the basis of national

origin.” Id. at 92; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1606.5(a) (“In those circumstances, where

citizenship requirements have the purpose or effect of discriminating against an

individual on the basis of national origin, they are prohibited by Title VII.”) (citing

Espinoza, 414 U.S. at 92). Technocrest also asserts that the EEOC is acting in bad

faith because the subpoena seeks documents related to citizenship and because

Technocrest claims that the six charging parties cannot establish a prima facie case

of national origin discrimination where all the technical employees of Technocrest

are Filipino.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the

request for work history information for the six charging parties, work history

information in spreadsheet form for all employees, and DOL and INS documents for

the six charging parties. These documents are not relevant solely to citizenship but

“might cast light on the allegations” of national origin discrimination against the six

charging parties and Technocrest’s Filipino employees as a class. Shell Oil, 466 U.S.

at 68-69. Moreover, Technocrest’s argument that a prima facie case cannot be

established is premature because proof of a prima facie case of discrimination in

violation of Title VII is not a prerequisite to the EEOC’s exercise of it subpoena

power in the course of an otherwise legitimate investigation. See Peat, Marwick,

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335
-7-

Mitchell & Co., 775 F.2d at 930-31. Therefore, Technocrest has not established that

the EEOC is acting in bad faith or that enforcing these portions of the subpoena

would result in an abuse of the court’s process.

The EEOC argues on cross-appeal that the district court erred in quashing the

request for DOL and INS documents and personnel files with respect to all

employees. The EEOC contends that if this information is relevant with respect to

the six charging parties, it is equally relevant with respect to all employees because

the charges allege illegal national origin discrimination against Filipino employees

of Technocrest as a class. Furthermore, the EEOC claims that the information is

relevant to the charges of individual discrimination because it may shed light on

Technocrest’s treatment of other Filipino employees in the same job categories as the

six charging parties.

While the EEOC’s access to evidence in furtherance of its duty to investigate

a discrimination charge is not without limitation, a district court should enforce an

administrative subpoena if the information sought is reasonably relevant to an

authorized investigation. See Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. at 652; see also Donovan v.

Shaw, 668 F.2d 985, 989 (8th Cir. 1982) (“The material sought by the subpoena was

not plainly irrelevant to lawful purposes of the [agency] and it was the duty of the

district court to order its production.”); EEOC v. Chrysler Corp., 567 F.2d 754, 755

(8th Cir. 1977) (“[A] court faced with a demand for enforcement [of an administrative

subpoena] is limited to determining whether the subpoenaed information is material

and relevant to the investigation of a potential violation.”). At the hearing, the district

court indicated that the EEOC’s requests were overreaching and that the court desired

to reach a compromise. However, the district court did not explain in its order why

the DOL and INS documents and personnel files with respect to all employees were

irrelevant to the investigation of the charges. Because the six charging parties alleged

not only individual discrimination but also discrimination against all Filipino

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335
-8-

employees of Technocrest, we find that the DOL and INS documents for all

employees and the personnel files for all employees are relevant to a determination

of whether Technocrest illegally discriminated on the basis of national origin.

Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in quashing the requests for DOL

and INS documents and personnel files for all employees.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons given above, we affirm in part and reverse in part the order of

the district court and remand for the district court also to enforce the request for DOL

and INS documents and personnel files with respect to all employees.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3457 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/26/2006 Entry ID: 2049335