Mayo Clinic v. U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n

• Decision Date: 21 July 2014
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 14-CV-3844 (JNE/TNL),CASE NO. 14-MC-0063 (JNE/TNL)
• Parties: MAYO CLINIC, Plaintiff, v. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. MAYO CLINIC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

MAYO CLINIC, Plaintiff, v. U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Defendant.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. MAYO CLINIC, Defendant.

CASE NO. 14-CV-3844 (JNE/TNL)

CASE NO. 14-MC-0063 (JNE/TNL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

July 21, 2014

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, on two motions: Mayo Clinic ("Mayo") has filed a Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, No. 14-cv-3844 (JNE/TNL), ECF No. 1; and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed a separate Motion to Show Cause Why A Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced, No. 14-mc-0063 (JNE/TNL), ECF No. 1. Based on memoranda of counsel, and all the files, records and proceedings herein, the Court willrecommend that Mayo's petition to quash be denied and EEOC's motion to enforce be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual History

Robert Gainor applied for a medical photographer position at Mayo Clinic on September 4, 2011. (See Decl. of Julie Schmid, ECF No. 3 ("Schmid. Decl."), Ex. 1; id. Ex. 2 at 3.)¹ Mayo denied Gainor's application on September 8, 2011. (Schmid Decl., Ex. 2, at 3.) Shortly thereafter, while the hiring process for the general photography position was ongoing, Mayo created a posting for a second medical photography position. (Id.) This second medical photography position was in Mayo's dedicated plastic surgery studio. (Id.) For the position in the dedicated plastic surgery studio, Mayo expressed a preference for a female photographer. (Id. at 3-4.) On November 2, 2011, Gainor filed a Charge of Discrimination against Mayo Clinic alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII ("Charge"). (Schmid Decl., Ex. 1.) The Charge alleged that Mayo published a medical photographer job advertisement that expressly indicated a preference for female applicants and rejected Gainor's application because of his sex. (Id.)

Mayo responded to the Charge on December 14, 2011. Mayo indicated that Gainor applied for employment in its general photography studio and that Gainor was not hired because he failed to satisfy the position's minimum qualifications. (Schmid Decl., Ex. 2.) The EEOC issued a Request for Information on December 18, 2012 ("December RFI") seeking additional information regarding Gainor's Charge. (Id., Ex. 3.) The DecemberRFI requested from Mayo, inter alia, "copies of all application materials received for the medical photographer positions in 2011[, and f]or each application if the applicant was not selected for an initial interview, provide the specific reason the applicant was not selected." (Id. at 2.) Mayo provided a written response on January 11, 2013. (Id., Ex. 4.) Mayo objected to the EEOC's request for all application materials for the medical photographer positions as overly broad and unduly burdensome; nonetheless, Mayo provided: (a) a chart of applicants who did not meet the basic qualifications for the photographer positions; (b) a chart of all applicants that were forwarded to the hiring manager but not selected for an initial interview; (c) a chart of applicants selected for initial and secondary interviews; (d) applicant interview summaries; (e) job description and posting information; and (f) a list of all employees in medical photography positions. (Id. at 4-54.) Mayo also informed the EEOC that it had not employed a male photographer in its dedicated plastic surgery studio before, and that it did not require or keep documentation of requests for female photographers. (Id. at 3.)

The EEOC issued a second RFI on February 24, 2014 ("February RFI"). (Id., Ex. 5.) The February RFI requested the following of Mayo:

1. Provide copies of all application materials including interview notes for the applicants who were interviewed for the medical photographer positions . . . . For each application, if the applicant was not selected for a position, provide the specific reason the applicant was not selected.

2. Update Exhibit 7 from January 11, 2013 RFI submission to include the specific studio (general surgery or dedicated plastic surgery) where the employee worked and the last known home address and telephone number for each employee.

3. State whether the respondent has ever considered hiring a male as a photographer in the dedicated plastic surgery studio. If yes, provide supporting documentation.

4. Provide a list of all male applicants not considered for the dedicated plastic surgery studio due to sex from January 1, 2011 to the present. Include copies of application materials for these applicants.

5. State whether applicants received preferential treatment during the application process due to sex (female). If yes, explain how.

6. Explain when the respondent started having a dedicated plastic surgery studio and provide supporting documentation.

7. Explain how the respondent determined which applications were considered for the general patient studio versus the dedicated plastic surgery studio. Provide the name and position of the decision-maker and a list of the applicants considered for each studio.

8. Provide documentation from January 1, 2011 to the present to show how many hours per week a male employee works in the dedicated plastic surgery studio.

(Id. at 2.) Mayo again objected to the February RFI as overbroad and unduly burdensome. In response to the February RFI, Mayo provided only cursory answers and provided no additional documentation. (See id., Ex. 6.)

The EEOC served Mayo with Subpoena No. CHMN-A14-16 ("Subpoena") on March 18, 2014 by certified mail. (Id., Ex. 7.) The Subpoena requested the following information:

1. Provide copies of all application materials including interview notes for the applicants who were interviewed for the medical photographer positions (as listed on Exhibit 3 of January 11, 2013 RFI submission). For each application, if the applicant was not selected for a position, provide documentation of the specific reason the applicant was not selected.

2. Provide documentation, updating Exhibit 7 from January 11, 2013 RFI submission to include the specific studio (general surgery or dedicated plastic surgery) where the employee worked and the last known home address and telephone number for each employee.

3. Provide a list of all male applicants not interviewed for a position in the dedicated plastic surgery studio due to the preference for a female from January 1, 2011 to the present. Include copies of application materials for these applicants.

4. Provide a list of all male applicants not selected for a position in the dedicated plastic surgery studio due to the preference for a female from January 1, 2011 to the present. Include copies of the application materials for these applicants.

5. Provide documentation to show when the respondent established a dedicated plastic surgery studio.

6. Provide documentation to show how the respondent determined which applications were considered for the general patient studio versus the dedicated plastic surgery studio. Provide the name and position title of the decision maker and a list of the applicants considered for each studio.

7. Provide documentation from January 1, 2011 to the present to show how many hours per week a male photographer works in the dedicated plastic surgery studio.

8. Provide a list of interviewers for the general and plastic surgery studio photography positions by name, position, sex, date of hire, date of separation (if applicable), and reason for separation (if applicable).

(Id., Ex. 7.)

On March 21, 2014, Mayo filed a petition asking the EEOC to revoke the Subpoena. (Id., Ex. 9.) The EEOC issued a determination denying the petition on August 29, 2014. (Id., Ex. 10.) With respect to Mayo's overbreadth objection, the EEOC reasoned as follows:

In conducting an investigation, the EEOC's inquiry is not limited to the specific circumstances contained in a charge of discrimination because the EEOC's investigatory authority "serves a greater purpose than just investigating a charge on behalf of an individual." Federal Express, 558 F.3d at 852. Therefore, EEOC investigations are not limited to the claims presented by a charging party, but rather any violation that the EEOC discovers in the course of a reasonable investigation of a charge is actionable. General Tel. Co. of the Northwest, Inc. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318, 331 (1980); EEOC v. Astra U.S.A., Inc., 94 F.3d 738, 746 (1st Cir. 1996) (holding that the"allegations contained in the charge do not narrowly circumscribe the Commission's investigation" but serve as a "jurisdictional springboard" permitting the EEOC to investigate whether the employer is engaged in any discriminatory practice).

(Id. at 7.) EEOC served its determination on Mayo's counsel on September 2, 2014, giving Mayo ten days to comply with the Subpoena.

B. Procedural History

Mayo filed a Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum on September 24, 2014. Mayo Clinic v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, File No. 14-cv-3844 (JNE/TNL), ECF No. 1. After reviewing the petition, this Court entered a case management order setting forth a schedule for argument and hearing on Mayo's Petition. (14-cv-3844, ECF No. 4.) On October 8, 2014, the EEOC filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause Why A Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced By Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mayo Clinic, File No. 14-mc-63 (JNE/TNL), ECF No. 1. The EEOC's motion addressed the same core issue as Mayo's petition: the enforceability of the Subpoena. This Court entered a case management order in the EEOC's subpoena-enforcement action on October 22, 2014, that consolidated the briefing and oral argument schedules of the two actions.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Mayo's Petition to Quash, 14-cv-3844

The Court will first address Mayo's petition to quash the subpoena. The EEOC asserts that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Mayo's petition. The EEOC argues that Mayo's action to quash the Subpoena (1) is barred by...