EEOC v. County of Hennepin, Misc. No. 4-85-18.
| Decision Date | 28 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 4-85-18. |
| Citation | 623 F. Supp. 29 |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Lloyd Zimmerman, E.E.O.C., Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Thomas L. Johnson, Hennepin Co. Atty., and Joyce Y. Miyamoto, Asst. Co. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application for enforcement of an administrative subpoena, plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, and defendant's motion for a protective order. The Court will grant plaintiff's application for enforcement of the administrative subpoena, but will deny plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and defendant's motion for a protective order.
Plaintiff in this action is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC is in the process of investigating a charge of sex discrimination against the Hennepin County Sheriff's Department. Constance Leaf claims that she was fired from her position as a deputy sheriff prior to completing her probationary period because of her sex. As a part of its investigation, the EEOC is seeking to examine the personnel files of 16 deputy sheriffs who, like Leaf, were on probationary status. The EEOC issued an administrative subpoena to defendant Hennepin County (County) in order to obtain these personnel files.
Defendant does not question the relevancy of the information plaintiff has requested, but defendant will not respond to the subpoena absent a court order. Defendant's position is that the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (Data Practices Act), Minn.Stat. §§ 13.01-.88, requires defendant to provide such information only upon a court order. See Minn.Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4. Defendant states that it offered to provide plaintiff the 16 personnel files with the names of the individuals deleted. Defendant also offered to enter into a stipulation with plaintiff whereby both parties would request that the Court issue an order requiring defendant to produce the files.
Plaintiff rejected both these proposals. Plaintiff points out that the EEOC and the County have previously litigated the same issue, i.e., whether the Data Practices Act prohibits the County from responding to an EEOC subpoena without a court order. In a case involving a different underlying investigation, the United States Magistrate ordered the County to comply with an EEOC subpoena. EEOC v. County of Hennepin, MISC. 4-84-32, 35 EPD (CCH) ¶ 34,797 (D.Minn. Nov. 8, 1984). The Magistrate found that Title VII preempts the Data Practices Act, and that notwithstanding the Data Practices Act, disclosure was compelled by the Magistrate's order. 35 EPD at 35,459.
Plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate's decision has collateral estoppel effect (i.e., issue preclusion) against defendant. Plaintiff further states that defendant's contesting the same issue before this Court entitles plaintiff to attorneys' fees. Defendant responds that plaintiff is not entitled to attorneys' fees, and that if the Court orders defendant to produce the personnel files, the Court should also issue a protective order. Defendant requests a protective order prohibiting plaintiff from disclosing information from the personnel files to the public, including the charging party and her attorney or representatives.
The EEOC has the power to issue administrative subpoenas in conjunction with its investigations of allegations of discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-9; 29 U.S.C. § 161(1), and the EEOC can apply to a federal district court to enforce such subpoenas. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8, 29 U.S.C. § 161(2). A district court reviewing an EEOC application for a subpoena shall enforce the subpoena if it seeks information material and relevant to an investigation of a potential violation. EEOC v. Chrysler Corp., 567 F.2d 754, 755 (8th Cir.1977); see also EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 104 S.Ct. 1621, 1632-33 n. 26, 80 L.Ed.2d 41 (1984).
Defendant does not challenge the materiality or the relevancy of the information plaintiff requests. Rather, defendant states that the Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4, dictates that it produce the information only in response to a court order. Defendant believes that producing the information on the basis of an administrative subpoena would not satisfy the requirements of the Data Practices Act. Defendant fears that disclosing the information without a court order would expose defendant to civil and criminal penalties. See Minn.Stat. §§ 13.08-.09.
Plaintiff initially argues that defendant must comply with the subpoena because defendant has not exhausted administrative remedies. Any recipient of an EEOC subpoena who does not intend to comply must petition the EEOC general counsel to revoke or modify the subpoena. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(b). A party's failure to attempt this administrative appeal procedure prevents the party from challenging the subpoena, except on constitutional grounds. E.g., EEOC v. Cuzzens of Georgia, Inc., 608 F.2d 1062, 1063-64 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). Here, defendant never petitioned the EEOC general counsel for revocation or modification of the subpoena. Neither is the defendant resisting the subpoena on constitutional grounds. On the basis of failure to exhaust administrative remedies alone, defendant must comply with the subpoena.
Plaintiff's second major argument for enforcement of the subpoena is that Title VII preempts the Data Practices Act. Even though Congress does not explicitly preempt a state law, the state law will be preempted if it would frustrate the scheme established by federal law. E.g., Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1904, 1910, 85 L.Ed.2d 206 (1985); Malone v. White Motor Corp., 435 U.S. 497, 504, 98 S.Ct. 1185, 1189, 55 L.Ed.2d 443 (1978). The federal scheme concerning the EEOC involves the agency investigating allegations of discrimination. In conducting these investigations, the EEOC is entitled to have access to relevant evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(a). The EEOC, moreover, is supposed to conduct its investigations expeditiously. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (). See also Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219, 221, 102 S.Ct. 3057, 3060, 73 L.Ed.2d 721 (1982); EEOC v. K-Mart Corp., 694 F.2d 1055, 1067 (6th Cir.1982).
Plaintiff indicates that its investigations will be significantly delayed if it must seek district court enforcement for its administrative subpoenas. See Bloyer aff. ¶¶ 5-6. Plaintiff, therefore, concludes that having to obtain a district court order each time it seeks information covered under the Data Practices Act would frustrate the federal scheme of having the EEOC investigate claims quickly. Defendant never responds to this argument, and the Court concludes that the federal scheme would be frustrated if the EEOC had to seek court orders to enforce EEOC subpoenas seeking information covered under the Data Practices Act.
Defendant's only rebuttal is that it is faced with conflicting responsibilities from the EEOC subpoena and the Data Practices Act. Defendant is concerned that if it produces personnel information in response to anything less than a court order, defendant will be exposed to civil and criminal penalties. The Data Practices Act, Minn.Stat. § 13.43, subd. 4, does allow disclosure of personnel information only pursuant to a valid court order. The Data Practices Act requiring a court order for production of personnel information assures that such information will not be given out freely. Similarly, defendant supplying information in response to an administrative subpoena is not an example of freely giving out personnel information. Such a production is in response to an administrative order. This Court believes that a Minnesota state court should not conclude that a defendant has violated the Data Practices Act by producing personnel information in response to an EEOC subpoena.
The Data Practices Act frustrates the federal scheme embodied in Title VII. Title VII, therefore, preempts the Data Practices A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EEOC v. City of Milwaukee
...569 F.Supp. 1526, 1528 (N.D.Ind.1983). See also, EEOC v. Cuzzens of Georgia, Inc., 608 F.2d 1062 (5th Cir.1979); EEOC v. County of Hennepin, 623 F.Supp. 29 (D.Minn.1985). As the Court noted in Roadway Express, Inc., there are strong public policy considerations supporting the doctrine requi......
-
Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Lutheran Soc. Serv
...enforced. See EEOC v. Cuzzens of Georgia, Inc., 608 F.2d 1062, 1063-64 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam); see also EEOC v. County of Hennepin, 623 F. Supp. 29, 31-32 (D. Minn. 1985);EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 1526, 1528-29 (N.D. Ind. 1983). The majority would distinguish these c......
-
Eeoc v. City of Milwaukee, 99-MISC-5.
...precluded from raising defenses to the judicial enforcement of the subpoena. City of Milwaukee, 919 F.Supp. at 1255; EEOC v. Hennepin, 623 F.Supp. 29, 31-32 (D.Minn. 1985). A few exceptions to this exhaustion of remedies doctrine exist, but the City, similar to what it did in the 1996 City ......
-
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Mkt., Inc.
...one who has neglected the exhaustion of available administrative remedies may not seek judicial relief.”); E.E.O.C. v. Hennepin Cnty., 623 F.Supp. 29, 31–32 (D.Minn.1985) (“A party's failure to attempt [the] administrative appeal procedure prevents the party from challenging the subpoena, e......
-
Annual Report On EEOC Developments - Fiscal Year 2021
...administrat ive subpoena); See also EEOC v. Cuzzens o f GA, Inc., 608 F.2d 1062, 1064 (5 th Cir. 1979); EEOC v. Cnty of Hennepin, 623 F. Supp. 29, 33 (D. Minn. 198 5); EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 1 526, 1528 (N.D. Ind. 1983).168 See, e.g., EEOC v. Chrome Zone LLC, Case No. 4......