Term: 2016
Docket: 15-1248
Mclane Company v. Eeoc
- Pro
15-1248 McLANE CO. V. EEOC DECISION BELOW: 804 F.3d 1051 LIMITED TO QUESTION 1 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. ORDER OF NOVEMBER 8, 2016: STEPHEN B. KINNAIRD, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS CASE, AS AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITION THAT A DISTRICT COURT’S DECISION TO QUASH OR ENFORCE AN EEOC SUBPOENA IS SUBJECT TO DE NOVO REVIEW. CERT. GRANTED 9/29/2016 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether a district court's decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do, consistent with this Court's precedents concerning the choice of standards of review. 2. Whether the Ninth Circuit's decision to enforce an EEOC subpoena, depending upon a notion of relevance so broad that it effectively abrogates statutory limits on the EEOC's investigative powers, conflicts with EEOC v. Shell Oil, 466 U.S. 54 (1984) and the holdings of at least three other circuits. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-15126
The U.S. Supreme Court case McLane Company v. EEOC, 2016 revolved around the scope of a district court's discretion to enforce or quash Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subpoenas in investigations of discrimination claims. The Ninth Circuit had reviewed the District Court’s decision de novo, meaning it did not defer to the lower court's judgment and instead considered the issue anew as if no decision had been previously made. However, this was contrary to other circuits which applied an abuse-of-discretion standard that is more deferential towards lower courts' decisions. The Supreme Court held that a reviewing court should only overturn a district court’s decision about whether enforcement would be inappropriate under an abuse-of-discretion standard rather than de novo review because these decisions are fact-intensive and better suited for trial judges rather than appellate courts.
In the dissenting opinion for McLane Company v. EEOC, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to apply a deferential standard of review to district court decisions on whether or not to enforce an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) subpoena. She argued that such decisions should be subject to de novo review because they involve statutory interpretation and legal judgment rather than factual findings. In her view, this case was about more than just one company's refusal to comply with a subpoena; it was about ensuring that the EEOC has all necessary tools at its disposal in order to fulfill its mandate of enforcing anti-discrimination laws. She also noted that there is no compelling reason why courts should treat EEOC subpoenas differently from other administrative subpoenas when deciding whether or not they are enforceable.
