Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS U.S.A. (April 29, 2011)

Konica Minolta Business Solutions hired Elliot Thompson, an African-American male, in early 2005. Konica assigned him to a Tinley Park, Illinois sales team. Thompson believe that he was being discriminated against because of his race and registered a complaint with Konica's Human Resources Department in late October. Konica fired him the very next day, Thompson filed a charge with the EEOC. He alleged that he was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment and was discriminated against on account of his race. Konica initially cooperated with the EEOC investigation. During its investigation, the EEOC learned that Konica had four Chicago area facilities, that only six of its 120 employees were African-American, that all six were assigned to the Tinley Park facility, and that five of the six were on the same sales team. The EEOC issued a comprehensive subpoena, requesting substantial information regarding Konica's hiring history at all four sites. Konica petitioned to revoke the subpoena. The EEOC denied the petition. Judge Manning (N.D. Ill.) granted the EEOC's application for an order enforcing the subpoena. Konica appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Cudahy, Flaum, and Wood affirmed. Although the EEOC has primary authority for enforcing Title VII and must investigate discrimination charges, its authority is limited to evidence relevant to the charge. The Supreme Court adopted a generous relevance standard in Shell Oil. The EEOC need only have a "realistic expectation" that the requested evidence will advance its investigation. Although Thompson's charge did not include any allegations relating to his hiring, the Court had no trouble finding that the EEOC subpoena met the relevance test. Any discrimination in hiring or team assignments would be relevant to the EEOC's investigation of Thompson’s treatment. The Court also concluded that Konica failed to adequately develop its burdensomeness argument.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

GOTHAM HOLDINGS v. HEALTH GRADES (September 3, 2009)

Gotham Holdings and Health Grades are parties to litigation pending in New York. In that proceeding, Health Grades maintained that an award in its earlier arbitration with Hewitt Associates supported its litigation position. Although it tendered the award and related documents in the litigation, Gotham asked for more. Health Grades refused. Gotham subpoenaed the documents directly from Hewitt in Illinois. The court ordered Hewitt to turn over the documents, which it is willing to do. Health Grades appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that Health Grade's refusal was based on a confidentiality provision in the arbitration. The first ground on which it affirmed was a specific section of the confidentiality agreement that allowed documents to be produced in response to a subpoena. Additionally, even if the agreement did not so provide, the Court held that the parties to the arbitration could only bind themselves. They cannot, by agreement, limit a third party's access to the documents.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link