Court Opinion

ID: 9470733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:14:39.438098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:05.010391
License: Public Domain

E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because there is nothing in this case that requires the extreme remedy of mandamus. I dissent because the district judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow the subpoena enforcement proceeding to progress further unless the EEOC remove the clouds of unlawful selective prosecution that hung over its case. I dissent because the facts in this case fit the standard for discovery in EEOC subpoena enforcement proceedings set out in the majority opinion and to which I generally subscribe.
Here, there is evidence that a charging party with whom the company is unwilling to settle boasts of his connections in Washington that will force the company to pay on a charge for which they think they have no liability. True to that boast, a commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, one of the five highest ranking officials in the entire administrative agency no less, makes a strange and suspicious telephone call inquiring of the merits of the unsettled charge. True to that boast, shortly after this astonishing telephone call, a commissioner’s charge, attacking all of the employer’s employment practices, is served upon the unwilling settler. These alleged and sworn facts constitute “meaningful evidence” that the employer was singled out for a massive investigation because it would not settle a charge on which it did not think it was liable. The only thing lacking was the “smoking gun.” I therefore simply cannot agree that there was no “substantial demonstration” of abuse on “meaningful evidence,” 1 and that the district court abused its discretion so manifestly that mandamus is required. For these reasons I respectfully dissent from the granting of the writ.

. See footnote 5, majority opinion: “We emphasize that ‘a preliminary and substantial demonstration of abuse,’ supported by ‘meaningful evidence’ does not mean actual proof.”