Sears Roebuck & Co. v. General Services Admin.
Decision Date | 09 December 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 74--1946,74--1946 |
Citation | 509 F.2d 527,166 U.S.App.D.C. 194 |
Parties | 8 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1296, 8 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9827, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 194 SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, Appellant, v. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION et al., Council on Economic Priorities, Intervenor-Plaintiff. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Lawrence M. Cohen, S. Richard Pincus, Paul J. Cherner, Gerard C. Smetana, Chicago, Ill., Alan Raywid, and Burt A. Braverman, Washington, D.C., were on the pleadings for appellant.
Earl J. Silbert, U.S. Atty., John A. Terry, Arnold T. Aikens and Derek I. Meier, Asst. U.S. Attys., were on the pleadings for appellees.
Thomas R. Asher and Collot Guerard, Washington, D.C., were on the pleadings for intervenor.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judge.
Sears, Roebuck & Company brought this action in the District Court, seeking to prevent disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, of EEO--1 forms and Affirmative Action Plans (AAP's) which Sears, as a government contractor, has been required to submit to the General Services Administration (GSA) and to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Department of Labor (OFCC) by Executive Order No. 11246, 30 F.R. 12319 (1965), Executive Order No. 11375, 32 F.R. 14303 (1967), and regulations promulgated thereunder. Disclosure is sought by Intervenor Council on Economic Priorities, a non-profit corporation which is currently preparing a study of the comparative social performance of five major national retailers, including Sears. GSA and the OFCC, having first consulted the FOIA Committee of the Department of Justice, were willing to release the documents. These agencies offered Sears an opportunity to review the documents and point out any portions which were exempt from disclosure under either the FOIA or the OFCC disclosure regulations, 41 C.F.R. § 60--40.1 et seq. 1 Sears declined to follow this procedure because it maintained that the documents were wholly exempt under FOIA exemptions § 552(b)(3) ( ) and § 552(b)(7) ( ). Therefore it sought in District Court an injunction restraining the government from disclosing any of the information. The Council on Economic Priorities was permitted to intervene.
In an extremely careful and thorough opinion, 384 F.Supp. 996 (D.D.C.1974), Judge Bryant held that the documents were not exempt either under (b)(3) or (b) (7) and, as to those claims, granted summary judgment for the government and the intervenor. However, because Sears argued in the alternative that large portions of the documents were exempt under (b)(4) and (b)(6), but had never specified for the government which portions it believed those sections protected, Judge Bryant stayed disposition of those claims pending agency review. Sears was directed to submit its (b)(4) and (b)(6) claims to GSA within 30 days; GSA, in turn, was ordered to release all portions of the information not brought to its attention by Sears in those claims.
Sears has appealed from Judge Bryant's order granting summary judgment for the government on the (b)(3) and (b)(7) claims. Having unsuccessfully sought a stay of that order in the District Court, Sears moved in this Court for a stay pending disposition of the appeal. Because shortage of time did not permit thorough consideration of the case when the motion was filed, this Court granted a temporary stay on October 10, 1974. But intervening weeks have permitted a more complete understanding of the case, and the Court is now convinced that the stay should be dissolved.
This Court's decision in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers v. FPC, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 106, 259 F.2d 921 (1958) requires, inter alia, that one who seeks a stay demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on the merits. This Sears has failed to do. Its (b)(3) argument is based on three statutory provisions: § 709(e) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e--8(e); 44 U.S.C. § 3508; and 18 U.S.C. § 1905. None of these provisions specifically exempts the documents from disclosure within the meaning of § 552(b)(3).
Section 709(e) is a criminal statute which prohibits officers and employees of the EEOC from making public information obtained by the Commission pursuant to its authority under Title VII. The EEO--1's herein were collected by the Joint Reporting Committee (JRC), which collects documents for and distributes them to both the EEOC and the OFCC. Although under some circumstances the EEOC does require the submission of EEO--1's, which the JRC collects for it, Judge Bryant correctly held that all of the documents herein were obtained by the JRC pursuant to Executive Orders 11246 and 11375 and not pursuant to the Commission's authority under Title VII. Further, members of the JRC are not officers or employees of the Commission. While the JRC may be an agent of the Commission when it acts for the Commission, it is an agent of the OFCC when it collects information for that agency pursuant to Executive Order 11246. Thus, the data in question here was not collected by the EEOC, nor was it obtained pursuant to EEOC authority. Section 709(e) does not apply. 2
Sears' argument that 44 U.S.C. § 3508 exempts the documents from disclosure must fail for similar reasons. Section 3508 prohibits agencies from disclosing confidential information received from other agencies which would not themselves be permitted by law to disclose it. As we have already explained, GSA and OFCC do not receive the data from the EEOC. Thus, the argument that GSA and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fiumara v. Higgins, Civ. No. 82-403-D.
...960 (4th Cir.1981); cf. Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. General Services Administration, 384 F.Supp. 996, 1004 (D.D. C.), aff'd 509 F.2d 527 (D.C.Cir.1974) (per curiam); Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Friedman, 451 F.Supp. 736, 746 (D.Md.1978) (Exemption 7 gives private parties no interes......
-
Reinstein v. Police Com'r of Boston
...decided under the earlier as well as the later versions of the investigatory exemption. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. General Servs. Administration, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 194, 509 F.2d 527 (1974); Center for Nat'l Policy Review v. Weinberger, 163 U.S.App.D.C. 368, 502 F.2d 370 (1974); Metropolitan......
-
Hobart Corp. v. EEOC, C-3-80-326.
...law enforcement purposes, however, precludes the application of this exemption to Item # 1. In Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. General Services Administration, 509 F.2d 527, 529-30 (D.C.Cir.1974), the court "distinguished between records compiled as part of a routine monitoring procedure and reco......
-
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Schlesinger
...Charles River Park "A", Inc. v. H. & U.D. (1975),171 U.S.App.D.C. 286, 519 F.2d 935, 939; Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. General Services Admin. (1974), 166 U.S.App.D.C. 194, 509 F.2d 527 (jurisdiction assumed without discussion); Chrysler Corp. v. Schlesinger (D.Del.1976), 412 F.Supp. 171, 174-......
-
OFCCP Seeks Input On Potential FOIA Disclosure of Contractor Employment Information
...such prohibition does not apply to requests made to OFCCP for these same reports. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. General Services Admin., 509 F.2d 527, 529. As a result of OFCCP’s position, government contractors who have filed Type 2 reports now face the prospect of public disclosure of those......
-
OFCCP Plans To Disclose Confidential Employer EEO-1 Data: Can Employers Protect Their Information?
...flaws in the approach that it has now adopted in response to the CIR FOIA request. Footnotes 1. Sears, Roebuck Co. v. Gen. Services Admin, 509 F.2d 527 (D.C. Cir. 2. Littler's Workplace Policy Institute (WPI) has been considering options for pursuing such reforms depending on client interes......