Document: 449 U.S. 590 101 S.Ct. 817 66 L.Ed.2d 762 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner,v.ASSOCIATED DRY GOODS CORPORATION. No. 79-1068. Argued Nov. 3, 1980. Decided Jan. 26, 1981. Syllabus Section 706(b) of Title VII the Civil Rights Act 1964 provides that employment discrimination charges "shall not be made public" by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and bars public disclosure anything "said or done" during informal settlement endeavors. 709(e) makes it a misdemeanor for any EEOC officer employee "to make information obtains through its investigative powers before institution proceeding involving such information. After were filed against department store division (Horne) respondent, requested Horne to provide with complainants' records other relating Horne's personnel practices. refused unless agreed disclose charging parties. The give this assurance, explaining practice, pursuant regulations Compliance Manual, making limited party in his files when he needs connection potential lawsuit. When continued refuse information, subpoenaed material. Respondent then suit Federal District Court, seeking have EEOC's practices declared violation enjoin enforcement subpoena. Court held violated VII, accordingly enforced subpoena only on condition treat parties as members "public" whom cannot files. Appeals affirmed. Held : Congress did include within confidential is illegal under §§ 709(e). Pp. 598-604. (a) forbid logically agency proceeding, since charges, course, concealed from respondent upon statute requires notice served. A consistent reading § prohibits obtained investigations similarly exclude P. 598. (b) legislative history supports statute. 598-600. (c) Moreover, coordinated scheme administrative judicial VII. Limited can speed required investigation enhances ability carry out statutory responsibility resolve conciliation negotiation. 600-602. (d) Even if may encourage litigation some instances, result inconsistent VII's ultimate purposes permitting private right action an important part scheme. 602-603. (e) It was error hold had categorical comply assured supplied would absolute secrecy. entitled assurance each filing charge see no file than her own. 603-604. 4th Cir., 607 F.2d 1075, reversed remanded. Barry Sullivan, Chicago, Ill., petitioner. Roger S. Kaplan, New York City, respondent. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 limits authority has investigating attempting claim discrimination.1 We granted certiorari case consider whether Fourth Circuit correct holding prelitigation who meaning restrictions. 445 926, 100 1311, 63 758.2 2 * This arose sought evidence respect Joseph Co., Associated Dry Goods Corp. operates retail stores Pennsylvania. Between 1971 1973, seven employees Commission, six alleging sex one racial discrimination. began requesting complainants, statistics, documents, general beforehand material practice lawsuit.3 without secrecy, rejected petition revocation subpoena, suit, asking declare Commission's enforcing subpoena.4 3 concluding upsets negotiation settlement, provisions Manual covering special violate Accordingly, court 454 F.Supp. 387 (ED Va.). affirmed Court's judgment. v. 1075. II 4 In enacting combined means eliminating person claiming victim must first Commission. serve employer, begin determine there reasonable cause believe true. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b). If finds cause, dismiss charge. Ibid. does find try eliminate alleged discriminatory "by methods conference, conciliation, persuasion." Ibid.5 attempts at fail, bring civil employer. 2000e-5(f)(1). But also lawsuits aggrieved enforcement. dismisses charge, immediately action. And regardless 180 days after time own Ibid.6 5 gives two formal obtaining investigates charge: examine copy possession 2000e-8(a), 2000e-9. imposed duty maintain confidence. directs "[c]harges shall Commission."7 informally which found said done course negotiations between parties; violating prohibition faces criminal penalties. supplements these prohibitions manner whatever information" information.8 6 nowhere defines "public." regulation governing disclosure, construed statute's release permit where "is deemed necessary securing appropriate relief." 29 CFR 1601.22 (1979). Specifically, created rules their attorneys, persons whose behalf been organizations behalf, respondents so long request contemplated litigation.9 Though normally directly involved, sometimes allows prospective litigant cases brought same employer relevant litigant's case. 83.7(c).10 Before disclosing however, expunges names, identifying characteristics, statements witnesses promised anonymity, well names respondents.11 execute written agreement person, except normal filed.12 III 7 For reasons follow, we concluded here issue. states public." party. Nor expressly 10 filing. Thus, forbids proceeding.13 infer intended distinction used word 709(e), 2000e-8(e). essentially subject, and, absent congressional indication contrary, assume thing sections.14 8 very reading. bill passed House contained restrictions disclosure. See H.R. Rep. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 13 (1963), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1974, p. 2355.15 substitute Senators Dirksen Humphrey introduced Senate, later amendment. 110 Cong.Rec. 12819 (1964). Senator Humphrey, cosponsor bill, explained purpose prevent wide unauthorized dissemination unproved disclosures functions: "[T]his ban onpublicizing carrying duties . amendment hamper proper cooperation State agencies, but rather aimed available unproven charges." Id., 12723 (emphasis added).16 are hardly "general public," especially since, common sense express language show, supra, 598, they always them charge—proved unproved—in parties.17 9 statute, moreover, enforce 595. First, investigation: more readily obtain informally—rather 2000e-9—if present specific facts corroborate rebut. Second, negotiation: far likely settle enough able assess strengths weaknesses opponent's own.18 argues vigorously many otherwise filed, thus contravene policy relying resolution settlement. effect just opposite. little gain futile lawsuit, indeed possibility adverse fee award frivolous. Christiansburg Garment Co. EEOC, 434 412, 421, 98 694, 700, 54 648. Pointless burdens both federal courts, interest all concerned adequate assessing feasibility litigation. Under respondent's view hopeless order discover hopeless.19 therefore help fulfill goal maximum possible reliance voluntary claims. 11 event, even VII.20 remains enforcement, Alexander Gardner-Denver 415 36, 45, 94 1011, 1018, 39 147. considered "private attorney general," role parallel itself. S.Ct., 700.21 could play access needed IV 12 Nevertheless, though allowed party's himself, nothing reveals intent allow reveal claims 83.7(c).22 As noted earlier, member forbidden extension, reason, obviously aware belong referred directed reason why should know content employee's people. With own, stranger. 14 notes often consolidates substantially similar investigation, instances draws generated earlier because another burdensome reproduce generally file, unfair deny him that, chance timing, appears fully file. 15 argument merely convenience, convenience override Statistics about employer's certainly individual discrimination, McDonnell Douglas Green, 411 792, 804-805, 93 1817, 1825, 36 668, including full summary form, while giving weigh strength V 16 erred, therefore, judgment reversed, remanded proceedings opinion. 17 ordered. 18 POWELL took decision REHNQUIST consideration 19 BLACKMUN, concurring dissenting part. 20 my view, standard evaluating expressed became notes, ante, 598-600, stated 2000e-5(b) 2000e-8(e), do "such statute." I adhere require justify demonstrating "necessary [its] duties."* Because communicate respondents, investigate true, inform determination, attempt 706(b), undoubtedly occasions witnesses. permitted filed. 21 pointed provision imposing "for reviewing pending litigation." 83.3(a). disagreement over hindrance effective simply authorizing assist trying decide suit. 22 pre-litigation invalid. affirm 23 STEVENS, dissenting. 24 construes authorization discovery. principal basis unusual construction plain contents prohibited. knowledge source charge; occurs reads what written, public. 25 To prompt neutral conciliator, employers alike occur prior proceedings. imposes penalties 2000e-8.1 seems fanciful me conclude prohibit direct indirect That result, consequence fairly large group pass along others.2 Although agree disclosed others, neither statutes nor contain sanction sort agreement.3 regarded nonpublic category, prohibited receive Commission.4 shows drafting Congress. 26 interpreted accordance meaning. 27 respectfully dissent. 78 Stat. 259, amended, 2000e-5(b), part: "Charges writing oath affirmation form requires. Charges determines endeavor unlawful persuasion. Nothing endeavors officers employees, subsequent consent concerned. Any subsection fined $1,000 imprisoned year, both. ." 264, provides: "It section title guilty conviction thereof, $1,000, year." lacks 1075 (CA4), conflicts Fifth H. Kessler 472 1147. Courts Seventh Columbia Circuits virtually way case, somewhat different context materials emerging systemwide itself Burlington Northern, Inc. 582 1097 (CA7); Sears, Roebuck 189 U.S.App.D.C. 163, 581 941. Since question how apply set (1979): "Neither 709(a) kept reports 709(c) matters parties, relief. representatives interested Federal, State, local authorities function publication data derived identity supplying information." "special disclosure" scope those treats being separate 1610.17(d) (1979); 83 et seq. complaint Administrative Procedure Act, 551, 553, Trade Secrets 1905, Freedom Information 552. addition, substantive, procedural, exceeded issue latter type only. 2000e-12. Neither addressed allegations, issues raise now us. most cases, actually begins achieve negotiated reasonable-cause determination. 1601.20 15. early merits claim. quickly improve chances resolution, holds factfinding conference decision, presenting version facts. 1601.15(c) regulations, right-to-sue letter once 1601.28(a)(1), complete filing, 1601.28(a)(2). 90 sue n. 1, supra. party, until attached, demonstrate compelling need "relevant material" follows: "Information determinations (e. g., sex, religion, national origin, race) exceptions promotion females involved male's hired hiring haired males. Other involve treatment afforded protected class probative systemic Spanish Surnamed Americans accorded Blacks vice versa)." 83.7(c)(2). However, whenever discloses files, 83.7(c)(4). negotiations, power evidence. instituted VII." 83.3(b). arising "without concerned." phrase suggests "persons" necessary, forbidden. forbidding "in whatever," clearly refer publication, incorporate reference 38 723, 50, FTC "public authority. 7152, 710(a) (1963). construing 10, applies 1.41, 1.133, 1.134 (1964) (current 3.36, 4.10(c) (1980)). passing amendment, assumed Senate gave Act. Dirksen, 706(b)'s revealed "The results approach will achieved carried privacy. compliance achieved, dispute exposed filed." 8193 Dirksen's explanation strongly efforts "fully exposed" begins. principle courts agency's contemporaneous founding Power Reactor Electricians, 367 396, 408, 81 1529, 1535, 924, issued rule shortly 1965. 30 Fed.Reg. 8407 (1965). deserves deference remained period time. Trafficante Metropolitan Life Ins. 409 205, 210, 364, 367, 34 415. current (1979), reflects significant change original regulation. "as functions. 8409 changed 1977 rephrase controlling "where 42024 (1977) (codified (1979)). years consistently never disapproval, silence regard practice. United States Jackson, 280 183, 196-197, 50 143, 147, 74 L.Ed. 361. 1972 major changes minor 706(b): amended requiring replacing "consent parties" "on of" new "persons concerned" probably conform change. 118 4941 (1972). probable explains factual bases conclusion. 40.7. positive finding thereby spur settlement; negative deter frivolous essential announce bare conclusion benefits determination lost. consents waives 2000e-5(f)(1); Occidental 432 355, 97 2447, 2453, 53 402. Of anyone settles up litigate it. places claimants difficult position forcing yield initial control which, reaching might interests employee. unlikely force difficulty resisting opportunity enter waive investigations. An impecunious conduct thorough tempted lawsuit appointed counsel, 2000e-5(f)(1), Young International Telephone Telegraph 438 757, 764 (CA3). amendments strong reaffirmation importance scheme: retention clear forced abandon Attorney General be, insufficient grounds Government complaint. hoped recourse exception rule. individual's rights redress paramount avenues left open quick 7565 (1972) (Section-by-Section analysis). adopted precisely Its rules, 1965, authorized function." unchanged 1977, state broader standard, although disclaimed so. (1977). Disclosure attorney, certain others departure previous clear, retained function" federal, state, authorities. Regulations forth program 1975. They called 2000e-8(e) punishable 1-year imprisonment fine. permitted, described attorneys. 596-597. consequences surely authorizes further injunctive compensatory relief breach others. Brief Petitioner 37-38, 24. remedy ameliorate practical regulation, existence answer provided category.

Category: 1