EEOC v. Gladieux Refinery, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. F 86-22. |
| Citation | 631 F. Supp. 927 |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. GLADIEUX REFINERY, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Barbara McAdam, Ellen K. Thomas, Laurie A. Young, E.E.O.C., Indianapolis, Ind., Johnny J. Butler, Philip B. Sklover, E.E. O.C., Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
John C. Theisen, Galluccci, Hopkins & Theisen, Fort Wayne, Ind., for respondent.
This matter is before the court on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC or Commission) application for an order requiring respondent Gladieux Refinery, Inc. (Gladieux) to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the EEOC pursuant to § 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), filed on December 6, 1985. A hearing was held on this matter on January 9, 1986. Respondent filed its brief in opposition to petitioner's application on January 6, 1986, and petitioner's reply memorandum was filed on January 16, 1986. Both parties have filed supporting affidavits.
Petitioner, in its reply brief, also seeks a determination that the two year statute of limitations that applies to Commission investigations be tolled from September 6, 1985, when the subpoena was first issued, until the time of compliance with the subpoena. For the following reasons, petitioner's application for the production of documents will be granted in part and denied in part and the statute of limitations applicable to the present action will be tolled until the documents are produced.
This application arises out of an administrative proceeding between the EEOC and Gladieux. The underlying proceeding involves a complaint to the EEOC by Virgil Reinig (Reinig) alleging that Gladieux engaged in an unfair labor practice by discriminating against Reinig and terminating his employment because of his age. The EEOC seeks to have an administrative subpoena enforced against Gladieux requiring the production of documents and information that pertains to the investigation of this alleged practice of employment discrimination.
The undisputed facts in this case are as follows. On June 29, 1984, Reinig filed a charge with the Fort Wayne Metropolitan Human Relations Commission against Gladieux, charging discrimination in employment due to age, pursuant to § 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). Reinig claims that he was forced to resign from his position as maintenance and construction superintendent on December 19, 1983 (Young's Affidavit, EEOC Brief in Support), so that Gladieux could give Reinig's position to a younger person.
On July 5, 1984, Reinig's charge was transferred to the EEOC (Ex. II, EEOC Brief in Support), and a letter of notice of filing was mailed to Gladieux on July 9, 1984 (Ex. II, EEOC Brief in Support). On July 23, 1984, Gladieux responded to the Notice of Charge indicating that the charging party was terminated for good cause (Ex. IV, EEOC Brief in Support).
On September 7, 1984, the EEOC mailed to Gladieux a Request for Information with a cover letter seeking a written position statement on each of the allegations of the charges, details of Reinig's termination, and information concerning the termination of comparable parties (Ex. V, VI, EEOC Brief in Support). The Commission gave Gladieux fifteen days to respond and also agreed to a requested fifteen day extension. On February 13, 1985, another request was mailed, seeking the requested information by February 25, 1985 (EEOC Brief in Support, Ex. VII).
In a telephone conversation held on May 9, 1985, Gladieux asserted that Reinig's charge was untimely since it was filed on the one hundred ninety-second day, well past the one hundred eighty day filing requirement that applies to an individual's claim. In a letter dated July 8, 1985, Gladieux confirmed this position (EEOC Brief in Support, Ex. VIII). Finally, on July 16, 1985, EEOC mailed yet another copy of the Request for Information along with notice that the Commission would proceed under their subpoena powers, if the information was not forthcoming (EEOC Brief in Support, Ex. IX).
On August 22, 1985, Gladieux mailed a cover letter and its Position Statement (EEOC Brief in Support, Ex. X, XI), but continued to decline to provide the documents, based on the assertion of an untimely filed charge. The EEOC responded by issuing an administrative subpoena to Gladieux, No. IN-85-014, for the production of documents specified in request of September 19, 1985. EEOC seeks information from January 1, 1982, to the present.
In a letter dated October 1, 1985, Gladieux indicated its intention to decline to supply the requested information (EEOC Brief in Support, Ex. XIII).
On December 6, 1985, EEOC applied to this court for judicial enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum brought pursuant to § 7(a) and (b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., §§ 9 and 11 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 209 and 211, and §§ 9 and 10 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 49 and 50.
Gladieux asserts two reasons for denying the application. The first involves a claim that the charge is untimely. Gladieux asserts that the one hundred eighty day limitation for filing an age discrimination action has passed and therefore the claim can never be the basis of a valid complaint. The second involves a claim of abuse of process1 and defectiveness of the subpoena. Gladieux asserts that the subpoena is overly broad because it goes beyond requesting documents or tangible things and is also vague and confusing and should not be enforced. If the subpoena is enforced, however, Gladieux argues that the scope should be limited to inspection of business records and tangible documents. The court will consider each of these arguments in turn.
The power of the EEOC to issue subpoenas is set forth in § 626(a) and (b) of the Age Discrimination Act, 29 U.S.C. § 626(a) and (b):
If a party refuses to obey a subpoena, the EEOC may apply for enforcement of the subpoena to the district court of the jurisdiction where the inquiry is being held or where the refusal occurred. 15 U.S.C. § 49. A district court's review of an EEOC subpoena is "extremely limited," "extremely narrow," and of "a summary nature." EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 104 S.Ct. 1621, 1632-33 n. 26, 80 L.Ed.2d 41 (1984). See also EEOC v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp., 668 F.2d 304, 310 (7th Cir.1981); EEOC v. Suburban Transit System, Inc., 538 F.Supp. 530, 532 (N.D.Ill.1982).
In Shell Oil, the Supreme Court stated that the appropriate standard for district court enforcement of a subpoena was that:
The district court has a responsibility to satisfy itself that the charge is valid and that the material requested is "relevant" to the charges, ... and more generally to assess any contentions by the employer that the demand for information is too indefinite or has been made for an illegitimate purpose ... However, any effort by the court to assess the likelihood that the Commission would be able to prove the claims made in the charge would be reversible error.
Shell Oil, 466 U.S. at 72 n. 26, 104 S.Ct. at 1632-33 n. 26 (citations omitted).
Gladieux argues that the filing of the subpoena is time barred. This argument is based upon the rights and requirements of an individual bringing suit under the ADEA as set out in 29 U.S.C. §§ 626(c) and (d):
The statute provides in pertinent parts:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.E.O.C. v. O'Grady
...have tolled the ADEA's statute of limitations where employers have refused to comply with subpoenas. See EEOC v. Gladieux Refinery, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 927, 936 (N.D.Ind.1986); EEOC v. City of Memphis, 581 F.Supp. 179, 182 It was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to toll the S......
-
EEOC v. American Exp. Centurion Bank, Civ. A. No. 90-466-JRR.
...is whether the facts, if accepted as true, are sufficient to establish an equitable basis for tolling. E.E.O.C. v. Gladieux Refinery, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 927, 936 (N.D.Ind.1986). Here the Bank's refusal to comply with a valid subpoena stopped the EEOC's investigation of Sanborn's charge in it......
-
Daugherity v. Traylor Bros., Inc.
...Co., 859 F.2d 534, 541 (7th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 491 U.S. 907, 109 S.Ct. 3191, 105 L.Ed.2d 699 (1989); EEOC v. Gladieux Refinery, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 927, 931 (N.D.Ind.1986). Thus, the 180-day period is applicable to Mr. Daugherity's claim.3 Although Traylor referred to the non-exhaustion......
-
U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Tire Kingdom, Inc.
...& Efird Mills, Inc., 964 F.2d 300 (4th Cir.1992); EEOC v. Ritenour Sch. Dist., 692 F.Supp. 1068 (E.D.Mo.1988); EEOC v. Gladieux Refinery, Inc., 631 F.Supp. 927 (N.D.Ind.1986). In each of these cases, the court rejected the employer's argument that the EEOC lacked the authority to proceed wi......