Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American & Effird Mills, Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | Misc. No. 2385-P. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
| Parties | EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Petitioner, v. AMERICAN & EFFIRD MILLS, INC., Respondent. |
Humphrey S. Cummings, E.E.O.C., Charlotte, N.C., for petitioner.
David L. Terry, Blakeney Alexander & Machen, Charlotte, N.C., for respondent.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner's motion, filed December 27, 1990, for an order to show cause why a subpoena issued by Petitioner to Respondent should not be enforced. On January 17, 1991, Respondent filed a response to the motion.
The record in this case indicates that the employment of Julian H. Papot was terminated on March 17, 1989. On October 17, 1990, Papot filed with Petitioner a charge of discrimination stating that he believed that he had been discharged from Respondent's employ based on his forty-one (41) years of age. On the charge of discrimination form, Papot indicated that the date when the most recent or continuing discrimination took place was March 17, 1989. Thus, approximately 556 days passed from the most recent discriminatory act to the charge being filed with Petitioner. Furthermore, no class allegations are contained in the charge.
In support of its motion, Petitioner contends that it is authorized to investigate charges of age discrimination. See 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. Title 29, United States Codes sections 209 and 211, by incorporating 15 U.S.C. § 9, provides Petitioner with the authority to issue subpoenas. On November 27, 1990, Petitioner served on Respondent the subpoena which is the subject matter of this dispute. The subpoena requires Respondent to answer various questions and to supply supporting documentation relating to the termination of Papot. When Respondent refused to comply with the subpoena, Petitioner filed the motion currently before the Court.
The Court recognizes that Petitioner has broad subpoena powers. But as Respondent argues, those powers do not include the authority to conduct an investigation in connection with a charge that has not been timely filed. See EEOC v. Ocean City Police Dept., 820 F.2d 1378, 1380 (4th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 486 U.S. 1019, 108 S.Ct. 1990, 100 L.Ed.2d 223 (1988).
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
E.E.O.C. v. American & Efird Mills, Inc.
...Commission (EEOC) appeals the district court's denial of its application for enforcement of an administrative subpoena duces tecum. 758 F.Supp. 338. The district court ruled that when an employee age discrimination claim is time barred under section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employm......
- Ward v. 84 LUMBER, Civ. No. S 90-853.
-
West Virginia Human Rights Com'n v. Moore
...that the court may look to the validity of the claim in denying the subpoena. See also Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American & Effird Mills, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 338 (W.D.N.C.1991) (holding However, we believe that the court's holding in the Ocean City Police Department case is d......