Court Opinion

ID: 9483894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:34:43.969517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:54.070032
License: Public Domain

PAUL J. KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in this court’s decision that the EEOC may extend its investigation to respondent's promotion policy as it relates to possible discrimination based on national origin. Ct. Op. at 1039-40. I also agree that respondent failed to make the showing required to prove that a request is unduly burdensome. Id. at 1040. However, footnote 3, Ct. Op. at 1039, notwithstanding, I cannot agree with the court’s conclusion that the EEOC, via a subpoena to produce documents, may require the development or creation of new information by the respondent. Id. at 1039.
The court relies on Circle K Corp. v. EEOC, 501 F.2d 1052 (10th Cir.1974), which indeed addresses the “unduly burdensome” aspect of Citicorp’s argument and perhaps the “scope of investigation” point as well. However, that case does not empower the EEOC to require a defendant to create a position paper or conduct extensive investigation regarding consideration for promotion which must then be reduced to document form and produced. We recognized the limited issues presented in Circle K in Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp., 522 F.2d 333, 344 (10th Cir.1975) (the objections involved in Circle K related only to the relevancy of the requested information and whether the request was unduly burdensome). I agree with the Second Circuit *1041that Circle K does no more than “require[ ] defendants to compile information from data already in existence and under the control of the defendants,” Parents’ Committee v. Community School Bd., 524 F.2d 1138, 1141 & n. 7 (2d Cir.1975), a very different request than is made here.
There is an important difference between compiling statistical information, see Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp., 522 F.2d at 345 (defendant could be required to produce “plant-wide statistics and department statistics” which the court noted “[i]n all likelihood the defendant already has ... isolated and computed”), and creating information, which is the type of discovery sought here. Some of the EEOC’s requests will require that verbal interviews be conducted, reduced to an entirely new document, and then produced. This “manufacturing of evidence” is hardly the function of a subpoena. Parents’ Committee, 524 F.2d at 1141. While the information the EEOC wishes to gain may be discoverable through other means (i.e. depositions, interrogatories), I do not believe the EEOC may pursue the information by way of a subpoena to produce documents. In effect, Citi-corp is charged with conducting an investigation for the EEOC in order to comply with the subpoena.
Section 2000e-9 of title 42 directs us to 29 U.S.C. § 161 to determine the EEOC’s powers of investigation. Section 161 in turn delineates the investigatory tools of the agency:
The [Commission] ... shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the purpose of examination, and the right to copy any evidence of any person being investigated_ The [Commission] ... shall upon application of any party to such proceedings, forthwith issue to such party subpenas [sic] requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of any evidence in such proceeding or investigation requested in such application.
29 U.S.C. § 161(1). See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.16 (enumerating three separate subpoena powers). Section 161 makes a clear distinction between the power to compel the production of documents and the power to subpoena a witness to take testimony. I agree with the Fourth Circuit’s analysis of the language granting the former power: “The terms ‘copy’ and ‘examination’ imply that the EEOC’s right of access then extended only to existing documents.” EEOC v. Maryland Cup Corp., 785 F.2d 471, 478 (4th Cir.) cert. denied, 479 U.S. 815, 107 S.Ct. 68, 93 L.Ed.2d 26 (1986). While the Fourth Circuit noted that some changes have been made to § 161(1), the words of limitation discussed were not altered and continue to have the same implication. The power of the Commission, under the first sentence of § 161, is still to have access to any evidence for the purpose of examining or to copy. The information sought in the subpoena before us would be accessible under the powers described in the latter provision of § 161, which grants the EEOC the authority to require the attendance and testimony of witnesses.
The court relies on Maryland Cup, Ct. Op. at 1039, but aside from statutory analysis, the facts of the Maryland Cup case do not support enforcement of the broad request in this case. In Maryland Cup the employer objected to the EEOC’s requiring it to “gather information about the race of former employees.” 785 F.2d at 478. In this case, the EEOC is requesting “previously nonexistent written position statements and explanations of the [promotion] systems used.” EEOC v. Gladieux Refinery, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 927, 935 n. 2 (N.D.Ind.1986) (scope of the subpoena power would not extend to require the respondent to produce “numerous documents and explanations that currently are not in existence”). As the court noted in EEOC v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp., 668 F.2d 304, 313 (7th Cir.1981), “[i]f respondent lacks the information necessary to respond ..., of course it would be excused pro tanto.”
For these reasons, I believe that at least some of the requests contained in the subpoena are beyond the scope the EEOC’s power and enforcement should be denied. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from *1042that part of the court’s opinion which requires interviews of employees and the reduction of those interviews to statements which must then be produced.
[[Image here]]
*1043[[Image here]]
*1044ATTACHMENT B
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 91-S-1341 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. CITICORP DINERS CLUB, INC., Respondent.
AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA GIORDANO
State of Colorado
ss.
County of Arapahoe
Patricia Giordano, being of lawful age and duly sworn, states as follows:
1. I am employed in Diners Club’s En-glewood, Colorado facility as the Human Resources Director. This Affidavit is based upon information and belief and the business records of Diners Club.
2. Diners Club has currently 17 facilities in the United States. No one in the Englewood facility has any authority to promote any employee in any other Diners Club facility who is outside their direct supervisory responsibility.
3. At all times pertinent to Ms. Brown’s charge, Diners Club has operated under a job opportunity policy which provides, in pertinent part, “The job opportunity policy permits staff to apply for positions which fit their skills and experience. All positions up to level U will be posted unless the senior manager of the functional area and the senior manager of Human Resources determine that staff who have the skills required for the position are not available within the company, the employment of a qualified external candidate is appropriate, or the position can be filled most appropriately by a candidate already identified within the business.” (Emphasis supplied.)
4. During the EEOC’s investigation of Ms. Brown’s charge, information was requested concerning all persons who had been promoted to level T during 1987, 1988 and 1989. On April 13, 1990, Diners Club provided the requested information and listed eight persons who had received such promotions during the three-year period. Diners Club advised the EEOC that each of these persons were selected by a single manager — John Calia.
5. The Commission has sought information concerning “within promotion.” The Commission has defined this term, which is not one used by Diners Club, as “... those individuals promoted under your policy taken from ‘managers guide on personnel policies’, page 1 of 3, dated April 1986.” This policy is quoted in paragraph 3 of this Affidavit.
6. On September 19, 1990, Diners Club advised the EEOC “we are unable, however, to state with specificity whether any of these individuals [discussed in that submission] were promoted under the ‘within’ policy as you have defined it. It is not our practice to identify promotions as being within department or otherwise and, accordingly, we do not have records which accurately contain this information. Moreover, we are unable to determine whether the promotion to this position was a result of new appointment, a grade change or promotion from one grade level to another. If you wish to review the personnel files of these individuals, please let me know and appropriate arrangements will be made.”
7. The Commission conducted witness interviews of several people directly involved in the decisions challenged by the charging party. Diners Club cooperated fully in those interviews.
8. As Diners Club advised EEOC District Director Francisco J. Flores, Jr. on June 6, 1991, “The subpoena requests information regarding “within promotions” including the names, race, sex and national origin of: (i) those who recommended others for promotions; (ii) those who were recommended for promotions and (iii) the participants in the selection process, for transactions which occurred in 1983 through 1988. This information including work group identification is not retrievable in any existing and/or accessible format, and would have to be reconstructed either by reviewing individual personnel files of all those employed during this period (not just managers) and culling the information *1045from over 2000 files archived at the Engle-wood office or by delving into the memories of individuals who actually worked in each work group over the time period if such individuals are still employed. By way of further complication, during the time period in question, the Englewood facility employed on average 1,100 people. This workforce is extremely dynamic: approximately 170 employees turned over each year totalling 847 staff changes from 1984 to 1988, not including promotions and transfers); and, only about 18.5% of the managers who were in place in 1983 are still with the company. The Diners Club business has been functionally reorganized approximately eight times since 1983, resulting in major changes in reporting structures, departmental composition and even location. Therefore, even those managers who are still employed will be unable to provide the breadth of information you have requested, and their memories for events occurring eight years ago will result in speculation at best.”
9. Diners Club believes that the examination of over two thousand files and the effort to compile what would admittedly be an incomplete response to the items requested in the subpoena would require two full-time employees working approximately six months each. Even after that expenditure of effort, the responses would be incomplete since records which would enable a complete and accurate response do not exist.
10. Prior to Diners Club having any knowledge of the filing of the EEOC’s Petition for an Order Enforcing Administrative Subpoena, Diners Club and Ms. Brown had reached agreement in principle concerning the settlement of her charge.
11. Ms. Brown was employed at an officer level. Her position was a grade level R with a 1988 salary range of $22,700 to $41,900.
DATED this 27th day of September, 1991.
(s) Patricia Giordano
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public in and for said county and state, this 30th day of September,
[Signature]
Notary Public
My Commission expires
January 8, 1994