Opinion ID: 2995687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: UAL first maintains that the district court should have refused to enforce the EEOC’s subpoena because the agency lacks jurisdiction to investigate the underlying charge. UAL primarily argues that the charge should be construed as a charge of citizenship discrimination, as opposed to national origin discrimination. Because citizenship discrimination is not prohibited by Title VII, UAL continues, the EEOC is not authorized to investigate the claim. As a corollary, UAL contends that the actions identified in Ms. Droge’s charge are sanctioned by international treaty. Consequently, the treaty operates to deprive the EEOC of investigative authority concerning these actions. With respect to its first argument, UAL focuses on the language used by the EEOC in its subpoena which speaks in terms of citizenship as opposed to country of origin. See R.9, Ex.1 para.para. 1, 5, 7 & 8-10 (1. Identify each and every benefit received by employees of United Airlines who are French citizens . . . .) (emphasis added). UAL also points to the EEOC’s determination letter-- declining to revoke the administrative subpoena--which refers to Ms. Droge’s national origin as United States. R.9, Ex.3 at 2. We begin our analysis with 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e-8(a), which provides the statutory authority for EEOC investigations. The section provides: In connection with any investigation of a charge filed under section 2000e-5 of this title, the Commission or its designated representative shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purposes of examination, and the right to copy any evidence of any person being investigated or proceeded against that relates to unlawful employment practices covered by this subchapter and is relevant to the charge under investigation. Id. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has explained that the authority of the EEOC to investigate is grounded in the charge of discrimination: [T]he EEOC’s investigative authority is tied to charges filed with the Commission; unlike other federal agencies that possess plenary authority to demand to see records relevant to matters within their jurisdiction, the EEOC is entitled to access only to evidence relevant to the charge under investigation. EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 64 (1984) (quoting 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000e- 8(a); footnotes omitted). Consequently, the Court has concluded, a valid charge of discrimination is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial enforcement of a subpoena issued by the EEOC. Id. at 65. Whether a specific charge is valid/2 is determined from the face of the charge, not from extrinsic evidence. See EEOC v. K-Mart Corp., 694 F.2d 1055, 1065 (6th Cir. 1982). Turning to the charge at issue, we do not believe that the charge fails to allege an injury that, on its face, is covered by Title VII. It states: