Eeoc v. Vf Jeanswear Lp ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT No. 17-16786
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
D.C. No. 2:16-mc-00047-NVW
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
VF JEANSWEAR LP,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Neil V. Wake, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 11, 2019
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL,** District Judge.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) appeals the
district court’s decision declining to enforce a subpoena issued by the EEOC
against VF Jeanswear. Following a charge of discrimination filed by L.B., a former
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.
employee of VF Jeanswear, the EEOC subpoenaed a wide range of employment
information from VF Jeanswear relating to its supervisors, managers, and
executive employees. We review the district court’s decision not to enforce the
subpoena for abuse of discretion. McLane Co., Inc. v. EEOC, 137 S. Ct. 1159,
1170 (2017).
1. The district court abused its discretion when it held that the subpoenaed
information was not relevant to L.B.’s charge. For an EEOC subpoena to be
enforceable, it must seek information that is relevant to the charge under
investigation. EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 68-69 (1984). The relevance
standard allows “access to virtually any material that might cast light on the
allegations against the employer.” Id.
L.B. alleged that because of her sex, she was harassed, demoted, underpaid,
and not offered opportunities for promotion. L.B. also alleged that female
employees generally were discriminated against because of their sex. Specifically,
she stated “Females are not afforded the opportunity in top level positions. Top
level positions are male dominated.”
In conducting its relevance analysis, the district court proceeded from the
premise that only L.B.’s personally-suffered harms could be considered. However,
there is no legal basis for limiting the scope of the relevance inquiry only to the
parts of the charge relating to the personally-suffered harm of the charging party.
2 17-16786
Indeed, we have held otherwise. EEOC subpoenas are enforceable so long as they
seek information relevant to any of the allegations in a charge, not just those
directly affecting the charging party. EEOC v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842,
855 (9th Cir. 2009).
2. The district court also abused its discretion when it held that the subpoena
was unduly burdensome. It is the producing party’s burden to prove that
compliance would be unduly burdensome. EEOC v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of
N. Cal., 719 F.2d 1426, 1428 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc).
The district court held that compliance with the subpoena would impose an
undue burden to the extent it would require VF Jeanswear to produce information
not contained in the computer systems. The district court did not make an explicit
finding as to the precise cost of compliance. For its part, VF Jeanswear represented
that compliance would cost an estimated $10,698.00.
The EEOC offered into evidence the declaration of Ronald Edwards, who
presented evidence that VF Jeanswear’s claim of undue burden was unfounded and
substantially overstated. VF Jeanswear did not proffer any evidence refuting
Edwards’ declaration. Even if Edwards’ declaration had been rebutted, VF
Jeanswear’s estimated cost of complying with the subpoena as part of an
investigation into systemic and unlawful discrimination does not unduly burden a
company with approximately 2,500 employees.
3 17-16786
The EEOC has represented that it no longer seeks information concerning
“age” and “reason for termination” from VF Jeanswear. The EEOC also has
represented that it no longer seeks information predating 2012 for subparagraphs
(f) and (g) of the subpoena. We hold the EEOC to those representations.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to enforce the subpoena
as written except as to information pertaining to age and reason for termination and
except as to information predating 2012 for subparagraphs (f) and (g).
4 17-16786