Opinion ID: 702347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Relationship Between the Charge and the Subpoena

Text: 12 Under Title VII, the EEOC has the right to examine and copy any evidence ... relevant to the charge under investigation, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-8(a) (emphasis added), and may petition the district courts to enforce the subpoenas it issues pursuant to this authority. 2 Thus, the statute makes clear that an EEOC subpoena will not relate to an investigation within the agency's authority unless it seeks information relevant to the charge under investigation. [U]nlike 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, 104 S.Ct. 1621, 1628-29, 80 L.Ed.2d 41 (1984) (internal footnote, quotation and citation omitted). Accordingly, an EEOC subpoena will not be valid unless the underlying charge supporting the subpoena is itself a valid charge. Id. at 65, 104 S.Ct. at 1629 ([T]he existence of a charge that meets the requirements set forth in Sec. 706(b) ... is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial enforcement of a subpoena issued by the EEOC.); see University of Pa., 493 U.S. at 191, 110 S.Ct. at 583; see also 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-6(e) (requiring EEOC to ensure that its investigations comply with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5, which sets forth minimal requirements for valid charges). 13 Section 706 of Title VII provides that discrimination charges shall be in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires. Id. Sec. 2000e-5(b). Pursuant to the authority delegated to it in section 706, the Commission has promulgated a regulation which states, in relevant part, that each charge of discrimination should contain [a] clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices. 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1601.12(a)(3). In Shell Oil Co., the Supreme Court considered in detail what section 1601.12(a)(3) required of Commissioners who file charges of discrimination under Title VII. The Court said: 14 Insofar as he is able, the Commissioner should identify the groups of persons that he has reason to believe have been discriminated against, the categories of employment positions from which they have been excluded, the methods by which the discrimination may have been effected, and the periods of time in which he suspects the discrimination to have been practiced. 15 466 U.S. at 73, 104 S.Ct. at 1633. 16 Quad/Graphics contends that Commissioner Silberman's charge does not satisfy Title VII's minimal requirements and, therefore, that the subpoena issued pursuant to that charge is invalid. Specifically, Quad/Graphics' argument is that the Commissioner's charge contains only conclusory allegations of discrimination and does not state the categories of employment positions from which the affected individuals allegedly have been excluded. In response, the EEOC argues that the level of specificity in the charge at issue in this case is the same as that in the charge that passed muster before the Supreme Court in Shell Oil Co. It stresses that the methods of discrimination and the time in which the alleged discrimination took place are set forth explicitly. With respect to the absence of employment categories, the EEOC does not dispute that Commissioner Silberman's charge fails to provide explicitly this information. It contends, however, that Shell Oil Co. does not mandate that all charges include such data, but instead suggests that Commissioners provide such information insofar as they are able.
17 We believe that the contentions of Quad/Graphics can be assessed only in the context of the Supreme Court's entire discussion in Shell Oil Co. The Court approached the issue of the level of specificity required in a charge by examining the role that the charge plays in the overall enforcement process. It noted that it is clear that the Congress, in enacting Title VII, had intended to restrict the investigative power of the EEOC to the evaluation of actual charges filed with the agency; the Commission did not have the power, granted to many other agencies, to conduct sua sponte investigations of any activity within its statutory area of responsibility. 466 U.S. at 64, 104 S.Ct. at 1628-29. Therefore, a valid charge is a condition precedent to the issuance of a subpoena. Id. at 65, 104 S.Ct. at 1629. The Court then turned to the statutory and regulatory provisions that we have set out above and noted that these provisions must be read in the context of [t]hree considerations[ ] drawn from the structure of Title VII. Id. at 68, 104 S.Ct. at 1631. First, noted the Court, a charge of discrimination ought not be considered the equivalent of a complaint initiating a lawsuit. The function of the charge is to inform the EEOC that someone believes that the employer has violated the statute. Id. It is the trigger for an investigation, not an adjudication of liability under the Act. Secondly, continued the Court, the charge, because it does trigger an investigation, is the basis for the EEOC's access to relevant information from the employer. Here the Court emphasized the need to balance competing considerations. On the one hand, at the time of the amendment of the Act, the Congress was certainly aware that the courts had interpreted the subpoena powers of the agency as permitting it to obtain all information that might cast light on the allegations against the employer, 466 U.S. at 68-69, 104 S.Ct. at 1631; Congress let that interpretation stand. On the other hand, the Congress continued the relevance requirement: The EEOC had the right only to information that pertained to a valid charge. This requirement cannot be rendered a nullity by an overly broad interpretation of the Commission's regulation requiring a clear and concise statement of the facts, 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1601.12(a)(3). See 466 U.S. at 69, 104 S.Ct. at 1631. Lastly, the Court noted that the ability of the EEOC to investigate charges of systemic discrimination ought not be impaired. When these three considerations are taken into account, continued the Court, it is clear that the regulation cannot be read to impose on the Commissioner the duty to specify in the charge the persons injured, when and how. Id. at 71, 104 S.Ct. at 1632. This information is the expected product of the investigation that the Commissioner, by filing the charge, requires the Commission to undertake. The purpose of the charge is not to require the Commissioner to substantiate the charge before the very investigation that ought to produce that result. 18 It is against the backdrop of these considerations that the Court set forth the four factors upon which both the district court and the parties have focused. Given the context in which they were developed, we think that it is clear that these four factors must be applied pragmatically, with the purpose of the charge in the overall framework of EEOC proceedings firmly in mind. Moreover, because we believe that such a practical approach is most in keeping with the analysis of the Supreme Court in Shell Oil Co., we do not believe that these four factors can be treated as existing in hermetically sealed containers. 3 Rather, the key inquiry must be whether the allegations in the charge, when assessed against these four factors, fulfill the legislative and regulatory command that the charging Commissioner identify as precisely as possible the appropriate area of inquiry to determine whether there is a violation of the Act. 19 In this case, the district court took the view that, at that early stage of the proceedings, it would not have been possible for the Commissioner to state with particularity the specific job titles in which she suspected the discrimination. The court drew that conclusion from its reading of the affidavit of the company's employee, Mary Protz, that there were several thousand job titles among the 5,059 employees at the four plants in Wisconsin that were the subject of the EEOC's investigation. The company argues before us that, although it might not have been possible for the Commissioner to delineate with any precision which of these job titles were the subjects of discrimination, the Commissioner could have delineated the broader categories, such as the seven EEO-1 classifications, that were affected. We do not know, however, that it would have been possible for the Commissioner to so limit the inquiry. Nor do we believe that the Commissioner ought to be required to state affirmatively the obvious--that, in the context of a systemic discrimination charge, the absence of a delineation of the affected job classifications represents a judgment that, at least at this initial investigative stage, the possibility of discrimination pervading all areas of the company's employment must be considered. Indeed, in cases of systemic discrimination, such a situation may not be unusual. 20 It is important to note that, here, the absence of particular categories did not leave the charge without meaningful limitations. Although the charge does not specify the affected job classifications, it does describe, with significant particularity, the suspected illegality and therefore the investigative need. The charge informed the EEOC of the targets of the discrimination, the type of discrimination and, with significant precision, the time frame in which the alleged discrimination took place. The aggregate effect was to narrow sufficiently the reach of the administrative investigation. An investigation circumscribed in this fashion fulfills the congressional mandate that the scope of the inquiry be limited without unduly hampering the ability of the EEOC to accomplish its statutory mission of identifying discriminatory practices that violate the federal laws that it has the responsibility to enforce. 4