Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
No. 15-1947
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-00869-GLR)
Argued:
Decided:
filed
complaint
against
Maritime
with
the
Equal
VII
of
the
Civil
Rights
Act
of
1964.
As
part
of
its
offer
contrasting
narratives
2
of
his
hiring
and
workplaces
that
Erazo
had
no
lawful
work
authorization.
which
Escalante
did.
He
went
by
Angel
Erazo
for
the
all
the
Hispanic
employees.
They
offered
those
without
different
Escalante.
social
Maritime
security
then
number
rehired
corresponding
him
and
the
to
other
wages.
Ten
other
terminated
Hispanic
employees
lodged
responding
to
the
charges,
Maritime
denied
all
footnote
the
fact
that
Escalante
had
worked
there
that
revealed
Erazos
lack
of
work
authorization.
were
unduly
burdensome,
overly
broad,
and/or
irrelevant.
Faced with Maritimes incomplete response to its RFI, the
EEOC
issued
subpoena
on
June
10,
2014
focused
only
on
district
dated
primarily
on
court
denied
June
23,
2015.
this
circuits
that
J.A.
application
315-16.
decision
in
The
Egbuna
in
letter
court
relied
v.
Time-Life
Cir. 1998) (en banc) (per curiam)). From Egbunas reasoning, the
district
court
authorization
concluded
precluded
any
that
Escalantes
standing
or
lack
right
of
to
work
seek
the
remedies under Title VII and thus left no viable basis for his
EEOC complaint. Id. As the EEOCs Application [for subpoena
enforcement] is premised solely on Escalantes complaint, [the
application]
must
be
dismissed.
Id.
The
EEOC
has
timely
appealed.
II.
A.
We begin by emphasizing what we need not address in this
case. We are not addressing any defenses Maritime might raise
against the EEOCs subpoena, such as the undue burdensomeness of
certain requests. We are not addressing the viability of any
cause of action that Escalante might eventually assert against
Maritime. We are not addressing the remedies that he might one
day claim. All that is further down the line. The only question
we must consider now is whether the EEOCs subpoena, designed to
investigate Escalantes Title VII charges, is enforceable. We
hold that it is.
The EEOC is empowered to enforce Title VIIs provisions
against
employment
Central
to
that
discrimination.
enforcement
42
U.S.C.
authority
is
the
2000e-5(a).
power
to
the
authority
to
issue
administrative
subpoenas
and
to
district
court
plays
limited
role
in
the
jurisdictional
Both
parties
question
agree
on
is
the
central
key
to
the
factual
instant
issue
that
the
EEOCs
authority
to
investigate
his
charges.
Appellees Br. 3-4 (quoting EEOC v. United Air Lines, Inc., 287
F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir. 2002) (quoting Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S.
at 65)). Without a valid charge from the employee presenting a
viable
cause
of
action,
the
court
cannot
enforce
the
EEOCs
Commission
responds
that
it
is
not
obligated
to
his
charge
of
national
origin
discrimination.
the
Commission
argues,
has
no
bearing
on
its
The
anti-discrimination
provisions
use
similarly
discharge
against
any
any
individual,
individual
and
or
otherwise
listing
to
national
discriminate
origin
as
grounds.
The
EEOCs
investigation
of
Escalantes
rogue
or
jumped
the
tracks
and
sought
to
investigate
enforcement.
The
district
court
followed
Maritimes
of
action
or
remedies
any
time
it
reviews
an
agency
v.
Shell
Oil
Co.,
dealing
with
various
threshold
requirements for filing charges with the EEOC and for providing
notice
to
employers.
466
U.S.
54.
Shell
Oil,
for
example,
routinely
considered
when
10
these
threshold
requirements,
EEOCs
investigation
such
that
non-compliance
precludes
viable
cause
of
action
or
remedy
at
the
subpoena
are
warned
not
to
venture
prematurely
into
the
11
later suit. Randstad, 685 F.3d at 449 (quoting Shell Oil, 466
U.S. at 72 n. 26; United Air Lines, Inc., 287 F.3d at 651).
Maritimes
approach
would
cram
substantive
questions
of
employer
every
wishing
conceivable
to
dodge
obstacle
to
subpoena
a
could
claimants
simply
prospects
raise
for
to
determine
the
validity
of
the
charges.
Without
Cir.
1971)).
Regular
order
suggests
allowing
the
EEOC
on
this
circuits
decision
12
in
Egbuna
v.
Time-Life
Libraries, Inc., 153 F.3d 184, and the Supreme Courts decision
in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002),
both
of
which
involve
undocumented
workers.
By
appellees
EEOC
has
no
authority
to
investigate
charges
brought
by
undocumented aliens.
If only our job were that easy. Neither Egbuna nor Hoffman
was presented in the premature posture that we find ourselves in
now. In Egbuna, this court reviewed a grant of summary judgment
against an employee bringing a Title VII action for unlawful
retaliation. Hoffman asked the Court to review an NLRB order
awarding
an
Neither
court
agencys
employee
had
subpoena
backpay
any
following
opportunity
authority
or
how
illegal
to
consider
it
related
termination.
the
to
relevant
the
relief
these
cases
do
throw
into
relief
are
the
hard
against
illustrative.
award
of
Boards
employer,
Even
backpay
employment
as
to
authority
including
to
the
an
discrimination.
Supreme
Court
undocumented
impose
cease
other
and
13
reversed
alien,
it
sanctions
desist
Hoffman
orders
the
is
NLRBs
affirmed
the
against
the
and
notice
whole
field
is
more
nuanced
and
less
categorical
than
Maritime suggests.
When laid bare, Maritimes challenge to the EEOCs subpoena
envisions a world where an employer could impose all manner of
harsh
working
questions
conditions
could
be
upon
asked,
no
undocumented
charges
aliens,
filed,
and
and
no
no
agency
discriminate
against
those
it
unlawfully
hired.
Maritime would privilege employers who break the law above those
who follow the law. And it would block the EEOC from shining
even the dimmest light upon the employers actions.
So the agency must be allowed to do its job, but there are
limits to its powers too. None of this is intended to sanction
subpoena powers over any workplace grievance only speculatively
related to an agencys statutory authority. We understand the
temptation for agencies to expand rather than contract their
spheres of influence. Subpoenas issued against individuals or
entities beyond an agencys jurisdiction are ultra vires from
the
start,
and
administrative
courts
overreach.
stand
If
ready
subpoenas
14
to
are
curb
that
unduly
kind
of
burdensome,
that too has long been subject to court challenge. But when, as
here, the agency is investigating charges plausibly within its
delegated powers, the courts should not obstruct. The district
courts
judgment
is
hereby
reversed
and
remanded
with
15
cause
[when]
the
person
to
whom
the
subpoena
is
329,
332
(4th
Cir.
1977)
(emphasis
added).
Here,
the
national
exceeds
the
unauthorized
scope
of
investigative authority.
by
focusing
requirement.
on
the
the
to
work
in
agencys
the
United
statutorily
States
prescribed
formalities
of
the
EEOCs
jurisdictional
component.
In order to obtain judicial enforcement of a subpoena, the
EEOC
must
show,
among
other
things,
that
. . .
it
is
Sanitary Commn, 631 F.3d 174, 180 (4th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
Commission,
charge,
[i]n
may
only
connection
access
with
evidence
any
investigation
that
relates
to
of
unlawful
42 U.S.C. 2000e-8(a).
Indeed, the Supreme Court has cautioned that, under Title VII,
the EEOCs power to issue subpoenas must be tethered to the
investigation of a valid charge, distinguishing the EEOC from
other
agencies
authority.
that
enjoy
more
plenary
investigative
(emphasis added).
Judge
prerequisite
fulfilled,
substantive
Wilkinson
satisfied
see
ante
at
requirement
as
views
long
10-11,
that
Shell
as
Oils
certain
706(b)
valid
jurisdictional
formalities
also
charge
contains
allege
that
are
the
the
17
U.S.C. 2000e-5(b).
to
charge
employment practice.
It
is
not
that
plausibly
alleges
an
unlawful
Id.
immediately
clear
that
this
component
of
the
See
Egbuna v. Time-Life Libraries, Inc., 153 F.3d 184, 188 (4th Cir.
1998) (en banc) (per curiam) (holding that an unauthorized alien
whose former employer refused to rehire him lacked a cause of
action under Title VII because ruling otherwise would sanction
the formation of a statutorily declared illegal relationship
[g]iven Congress unequivocal declaration [in the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986] that it is illegal to hire
unauthorized
aliens).
Where
the
person
to
whom
[an
EEOC]
employment
practices
that
are
categorically
excluded
from Title VII, S.C. Natl Bank, 562 F.2d at 332, courts must
engage
in
serious
consideration
of
the
agencys
potential
examining
whether
the
EEOCs
application
for
Ante at 14.
It would
concur
in
the
judgment
to
enforce
the
to
work
in
the
United
States.
See
42
U.S.C.
actions).
is
arguabl[y]
or
plausibl[y]
acting
within
its
20