2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-29-2004 

# EE O C v . B es se me r Gr p P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4049

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" EE O C v . Be s s e me r Gr p " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 450. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/450* The Honorable Louis H. Pol lak, U.S. Dist rict Judge for the Eastern Distri ct of Pennsyl vania, sitting by designation. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-4049

___________ EQUAL EMP LOYMENT OP PORTUNI TY COMMIS SI ON
v. BE SS EM ER GR OU P IN C.; BE SS EM ER TR US T C O., Ap pellan ts

___________ On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt

for the Dis tri ct of New Jersey Distri ct Court J udge: The Honorable Kathari ne S. Hayden

(D.C. Civi l No. 03-cv- 04006 )

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

May 6, 2004 Bef ore: SL OV ITE R, F UE NT ES , Circuit Judges , and P OLLAK, * Distri ct Judge
. (Opinion Fi led: J uly 29, 2004)

________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

________________________

### 2

FUEN TES, Circuit

Judge: This is a sub poen a enf orcem ent ac tion un der the Ag e D iscrimin ation in Employment Act of

1967 (ADEA ). Petiti oners, The Bessemer Group, Inc . and Bessemer Trust Company ( colle ctive ly “Bessemer”) were served with a subpoena to produce documents rel evant t o an investigati on being conducted by t he Equal Employ ment Opp or tu ni ty

Comm is si on ( “EE OC”) . A ft erBes se mer fa il ed to co mpl y , t

he EEOC initiate d an acti on to enforc e the subpoena in the Dis tri ct Court f

or the Dis tri ct of New Jersey . The matt er was refer red to a Magist

rate J udge, who ordered t he subpoena to be enforced. Subsequentl y, the Dist rict Court affi rmed the Magist rate J udge’s orde r and Bessemer now appeals f rom that de cisi on. Because we find t hat thesubpoena was iss ued in th e co ur se of a n i nve stig at io n pu rs uan t t o a l egi ti mat e pu rp ose , we wil l a ffi rm. I. Facts This case arise s out of an empl oyment di scri minati on clai m filed agai nst Bessemer by a former employ ee, Fl orina Gualbe rto, in which she al leged that Bessemer discriminat es on the bas is of age i n the sever ance packages off ered to terminat ed employe es in vi olati on of the ADEA. Bessemer denies t hat it engages in any suc h practi ce. Because the nat

ure of the severance package is relevant in par t to t he current appeal, we briefl y summari ze it here. Gual berto was terminat ed four months bef ore she turned 65, the age a t wh ich sh e w ould have retired a nd re ceive d retiree pens ion b enef its from Bessemer. In an affi davit s ubmitt ed to the EEOC , Gualberto stated that Bessemer1 The Magistrat e Judge als o issued two subsequent orde rs which ar e not rel evant t o the

curren t appe al. 

### 3 has a regul ar poli cy of off ering s everance benef

its to employ ees upon terminati on. App. at 45. G ualbe rto also stated, h ow ever, th at wh en an emp loyee fa cing re tireme nt is terminated, as she was, t he amount of sever ance benefit s is off set bythe amount of retiree pension benef

its to which the employe e is entitl ed. This was the sever ance package Bes sem er off ered G ualbe rto up on h er term ination . She a lleges th is prac tice is discriminat ory because y ounger employ ees who are te rminate d recei ve full severance benefit s without

any offs et, and sti ll receive retiree pension be nefit s when they reach the age o f 65 . Bess eme r, on the other h and, a sserts tha t the de scribe d of fset pr actice is exp ress ly perm itted by the AD EA and ther efo re n o di scrim inati on o ccu rs. Upon receipt

of Gualbert o’s complai nt, t he EEOC commenced an investigati on in to Bes se mer ’s pr ac ti ce s c onc er ni ng s ev er an ce be ne fi ts . O n May7, 200 3 a n EE OC investigator

sent Besse mer a Request for Informati on, seeki ng information about ot her former employ ees and the ir se verance package s. I n response, Bessemer produced Gualberto’ s personnelfile but refus ed to produce any ot her documents, clai ming they were confidential. Subsequentl y, the EEOC issued an admini strative s ubpoena on July7, 2003, ordering production of the requested documents byJuly21, 2003. Bessemer refus ed to complywith the a dminist rati ve subpoena, at which point the EEOC initiate d an acti on to have the subpoena enforc ed in the Distri ct Court f or the Distri ct of New Jersey . The District Judge refer

red the matter to a Magistrate Judge, who issued an order enforcing thesubpoena on September 12, 2003. 12 Dis trict c our ts rev iew a m agis trate jud ge’ s ord er d e no vo. See N. L.R. B. , 966 F.2d at

815. 

### 4 Bessemer appeal ed the Magistrate J udge’s orde r to t he District Court . After reviewing t

he Magistrate Judge’s de termination, the Dist rict Court affi rmed the orde r enforci ng the subpoena, finding t hat theEEOC had the authority t o subpoena the documents purs uant to i ts i nvesti gation of unlawful employment practices. Bessemer
now app eals the d istrict cou rt’s a ffir ma nce of th e M agis trate Jud ge’ s ord er. II. Juris dicti on and Standard of Review We ha ve j ur is di ct io n t o r evi ew the o rd erof t he d is tric t c ourt p ur suantto 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Orders e nforcing a dminist rati ve subpoenas are considered “final ” for purpos es of this secti on because there is no ongoing judi cial proceedi ng that would bedelay ed by an app eal. Univ. of

Med. & Dentistry v. Corr igan , 347 F.3d 57, 63 (3d Cir. 2003 ). The re is di sa gr ee men t b et wee n the pa rt ie s a s t o wh ic h s tandardof re vi ew we should employ in our analy sis. The EEOC argues that the appropriate standard is abuse of discr etion, which is gener ally applie d to revi ew a district c ourt’ s order e nforcing a n administ rati ve subpoena. 2 N.L.R.B. v. Frazi er , 966 F.2 d 81 2, 81 5 (3 d C ir. 19 92)
. Bessemer argues , however, that we shoul d review the Distri ct Court’ s order de novo beca use th e district c ourt im prop erly review ed the M agistrate Judg e’s ord er. W e find it
unnecessary t o resol ve this disput e because, even if we accept Bessemer’s proposal and review the rec ord d e nov o, w e w ould neve rtheless affirm the D istrict Co urt’s ord er to enforce the subpoena. III. Discussi on

### 5

An administr ative subpoena shoul d be enforced i f the agency can show “that

the inves tigation will be cond ucted pursu ant to a legitima te purp ose, tha t the inq uiry is relevant, t

hat the information demanded is not already wit hin the a gency’ s possess ion, and that the admini strative s teps r equired by the st atute have been foll owed.” Univ. of M ed. & De ntistr y, 347 F.3d at 64 ( quoting F.D .I.C. v. W entz , 55 F.3d 905, 908 (3d Cir. 199 5)). F urth erm ore , the r equ est f or in for ma tion ma y not b e ov erb roa d or bur den som e. Id. Bessemer does not disput e that

the subpoena i tsel f is pr ocedural ly valid, that t he information sought

by the EEOC is gener ally relevant to i nvesti gating t he charge of age disc rimi natio n, or that t he E EO C d oes not alrea dy po sses s the req ues ted in for ma tion
. Rather, Bessemer argues that t he subpoena shoul d be quashed becaus e there is no legit imate pur

pose behind t

he EEOC ’s inve sti gation. Specifi call y, Bessemer asse rts t hat the pra ctice o f off setting s evera nce p ay by the am oun t of pe nsion bene fits is exp ressly permitted by t

he AD EA, and thus the absence of a statutory viol ation renders the purpose of the i nvesti gation i llegi timat e. We disagr ee. Bes sem er’s co ntentio n that its o ffset p ractice d oes n ot viola te the A DE A is premised on section 623(l)(2)(A)(i i) of the Act, which states “[i]t shallnot be a vi olati on . . . of this secti on solel y because foll owing a conti ngent event unrelated to age the value of any addi tionalpension benef its that are made avail able sol elyas a res ult of t he conti ngent event unre late d to age . . . are deduct ed from severance pay made available as a result of the contingent e vent unrel ated t o age.” 29 U.S. C. § 623(l) (2)(A)( ii) (2000). Bessemer

### 6

argues that thi s section speci fical ly permits severance offset, and thus t he EEOC has no legit ima te pu rpo se b eca use it can not ultim ately p rev ail ag ains t Be ssem er o n th e m erits. To bolster

its argument, Bessemer attempts to ana logizethis case to ot her subp oena enfo rcem ent pro ceed ings in wh ich su bpo enas we re no t enfo rced b ecau se co urts found that

the EEOC ultimately coul d not prevai l in t he underlying case a s a matte r of law
. See E.E.O.C. v . Ocean City Pol ice Department , 820 F.2d 1378 ( 4th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (qu ashing sub poena relating to Title VII ch arge beca use the cha rge wa s untimely), vacated on ot

her grounds , 486 U .S. 101 9 (19 88); E.E.OC. v. Group Healt h Plan , 212 F. Supp. 2d 1094 (E.D. Mo. 2002) (quashi ng subpoena because the char ge against the
em plo yer did not inv olv e pr actic es c ove red by the Am erica ns w ith D isab ilities A ct). Bessem er urges us to c onsider M cC am brid ge v . Be thleh em Stee l Co rp., 873 F. Supp. 919 (E.D. Pa. 1994), in which the dist rict court r uled on a summaryjudgment motion that an employ er’s pol icyof reduci ng employe es’ seve rance al lowances based on their elig ibility for retiree health bene fits did n ot viola te the A DE A a s a m atter of law, in ord er to find sim ilarly tha t the p racti ce a t issu e in th is ca se d oes not vio late th e A DE A. First , we observe t

hat ret iree he alth be nefit s are addressed separatel y fr om retiree pens ion b enef its in 29 U.S .C. § 6 23(l)(2 )(A)(i). S econ d, w e belie ve it is ina ppro priate to extendanyana ly si s f

ro m McCam bridge at thi s stageof the proc eedings wit h the li mited record befo re us. T he E EO C res pon ds tha t § 62 3(l)(2)(A )(ii) does not b road ly permit
seve rance pay to be offs et by pen sion b enef its, but rath er, it narro wly per mits o ffsets in very spe cific ins tance s. In its brie f, the E EO C sta tes that “ at this stag e w e kno w v irtually

### 7

nothing about

Bessemer’s s everance pr acti ces . . . and therefore we ar e not abl e to make any a sses sm ent a bou t the c om pan y’s co mp lianc e w ith th e A DE A.” Re sp. B riefat 15
. For example, the EEOC points out t hat when it

firs t attempted to sol icit information regardi ng these pr acti ces, Bess emer maintai ned that it does not even have a for mal
sev eran ce p ay pro gra m. Distin guish ing the cases cited b y Besse mer in supp ort of its prop osition , the E EO C p oints o ut that in this cas e there is no w ay to dete rmine at this poi ntth at

an y ch ar ge br oug htbyth e EE OC wou ldul ti matel y fa ilas a ma tterof la w. We agree with the EEOC that moreinformation is necessary before a dispos iti ve legal d eterm ination can b e ma de. A t this po int, it is not cle ar w hethe r Bes sem er is in compliance wit

h the ADEA. As the Supreme Court st ated i n Oklahoma Press Publis hing Co. v. Wall ing , “[t] he v ery pu rpo se o f the [ad min istrati ve] sub poe na a nd o f the ord er . . . is t o discover

and procure e vidence, not to pr ove a pending charge or complai nt, but upon which to make one if

. . . the fact s thus di scovered s hould jus tify doing so. ” 327 U.S. 186, 201 (19 46)
. Trad itionally, adm inistrative agen cies are gran ted bro ad inv estigato ry pow ers to enf orc e the law s w ithin their pur view
. See U .S. v. Po well , 379 U .S. 48, 5 7 (19 64); U.S. v. M orto n Sa lt Co ., 338 U.S. 632, 642 ( 1950). Unli ke the j udiciary , an agency is not bound by the case or c ontrover sy requirement , and “can i nvesti gate merel y on sus picion t hat the law is bei ng violated, or eve n just because i t wants as surance t hat it is not .” Morton , 338 U.S . at 642 -43. T he D istrict Co urt cor rectly enfo rced th e sub poen a to allo w th e EE OC to

### 8

investigate w hether B esseme r’s severance pay program violates the A DE A. W e therefore aff irm t he D istrict Co urt’s enf orc em ent o f the sub poe na.