U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Mar. Autowash, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 April 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–1947.,15–1947.
• Citation: 820 F.3d 662
• Parties: U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner–Appellant, v. MARITIME AUTOWASH, INC., Respondent–Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

820 F.3d 662

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner–Appellant

v.MARITIME AUTOWASH, INC., Respondent–Appellee.

No. 15–1947.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: March 24, 2016.

Decided: April 25, 2016.

ARGUED: Paula Rene' Bruner, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John S. Vander Woude, Eccleston and Wolf, PC, Hanover, Maryland, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Jennifer S. Goldstein, Associate General Counsel, Lorraine C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and DAVID C. NORTON, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON

wrote the opinion, in which Judge NORTON joined. Judge NIEMEYER wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment.

WILKINSON

, Circuit Judge:

Appellee Maritime Autowash, Inc. employed Elmer Escalante, an undocumented alien, at one of its two full-service carwashes. Escalante filed a complaint against Maritime with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As part of its investigation, the EEOC issued a subpoena seeking information from Maritime related to Escalante's charges, which the employer opposed. The district court denied the EEOC's application for subpoena enforcement.

This matter thus arrives on appeal at a very early stage. The only issue before us is judicial enforcement of the EEOC's subpoena. We cannot yet know whether the agency's investigation will uncover misconduct by the employer or ever ripen into a lawsuit. Nor can we assess what causes of action or remedies might lie down the road. All that the district court was called upon to decide was whether the EEOC had authority to investigate Escalante's charges. We think the trial court erred in declining to authorize that very preliminary step.

I.

In May 2012, Maritime hired Elmer Escalante as a vacuumer at its carwash in Edgewater, Maryland. At the time, Escalante lacked authorization to work in the United States. Maritime and Escalante offer contrasting narratives of his hiring and termination. According to the employer, Escalante was originally hired under the name Angel Erazo. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) informed Maritime in May 2013 after inspecting its workplaces that Erazo had no lawful work authorization. Maritime contends it terminated “Angel Erazo” and hired the same person under the name “Elmer Escalante” that same month.

For his part, Escalante claims that he was hired in May 2012 under his legal name, not Angel Erazo. The head manager told him on his second day at work that the name Elmer Escalante did not match his social security number. The manager allegedly advised Escalante to obtain new documents bearing a different name, which Escalante did. He went by Angel Erazo for the following year. Escalante describes how, following an inspection by DHS in May 2013, Maritime's owner and its general manager met with all the Hispanic employees. They offered those without proper work authorization $150 each, styled as a one-time bonus, to help them acquire new documentation with new names. Escalante obtained a different social security number corresponding to “Elmer Escalante.” Maritime then rehired him and the other Hispanic employees with their new papers.

On July 27, 2013, Escalante and other Hispanic employees complained to Maritime of unequal treatment and discrimination targeting Hispanics. All of them were terminated the day they raised the complaint. Escalante then filed charges with the EEOC on February 6, 2014 for discrimination on the basis of national origin and retaliation as prohibited under Title VII. The time period identified in his complaint was May 2012 to July 2013. The complaint details the unequal employment conditions facing Hispanic employees at Maritime, including longer working hours, shorter breaks, lack of proper equipment, additional duties, and lower wages. Ten other terminated Hispanic employees lodged similar complaints with the EEOC. The Commission served Maritime with a notice of the charges on February 25, 2014.

In responding to the charges, Maritime denied all allegations of discrimination and stated that Escalante had been terminated for failing to appear for a scheduled work shift. By Maritime's account, “Elmer Escalante” had been employed for only two months, from May 2013 to July 2013. Maritime relegated to a single footnote the fact that Escalante had worked there previously under the name of Angel Erazo. Maritime claimed that it had terminated “Angel Erazo” in May 2013 pursuant to a DHS inspection that revealed Erazo's lack of work authorization. None of Maritime's submissions to the EEOC touched upon whether it had assisted Escalante in switching names and obtaining new documentation, as he alleges it did.

The EEOC served Maritime with a Request for Information (RFI) on May 27, 2014 seeking personnel files, wage records, and other employment data related to Escalante, the other charging parties, and similarly situated employees dating from January 1, 2012 to the time of the request. Maritime refused to provide records for any Hispanic employee other than Escalante. It again insisted that Escalante, as opposed to Angel Erazo, was hired in May 2013 and accordingly limited its response to May to July 2013. Appellee further objected that certain of the agency's requests were unduly burdensome, overly broad, and/or irrelevant.

Faced with Maritime's incomplete response to its RFI, the EEOC issued a subpoena on June 10, 2014 focused only on Escalante's charges. Maritime produced none of the subpoenaed documents. The EEOC then filed an initial application seeking enforcement of its subpoena, which the district court dismissed without prejudice to allow the agency to correct certain factual errors in its application. A second application for subpoena enforcement followed on March 26, 2015.

The district court denied that application in a letter order dated June 23, 2015. J.A. 315–16. The court relied primarily on this circuit's decision in Egbuna v. Time–Life Libraries, Inc., which held that a “plaintiff is entitled to [Title VII] remedies only upon a successful showing that the applicant was qualified for employment” and that being qualified meant being “authorized for employment in the United States at the time in question.” J.A. 316 (quoting 153 F.3d 184, 187 (4th Cir.1998)

(en banc) (per curiam)). From Egbuna's reasoning, the district court concluded that Escalante's lack of work authorization precluded any “standing or right to seek the remedies under Title VII” and thus left no viable basis for his EEOC complaint. Id. “As the EEOC's Application [for subpoena enforcement] is premised solely on Escalante's complaint, [the application] must be dismissed.” Id. The EEOC has timely appealed.

II.

A.

We begin by emphasizing what we need not address in this case. We are not addressing any defenses Maritime might raise against the EEOC's subpoena, such as the undue burdensomeness of certain requests. We are not addressing the viability of any cause of action that Escalante might eventually assert against Maritime. We are not addressing the remedies that he might one day claim. All that is further down the line. The only question we must consider now is whether the EEOC's subpoena, designed to investigate Escalante's Title VII charges, is enforceable. We hold that it is.

The EEOC is empowered to enforce Title VII's provisions against employment discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(a)

. Central to that enforcement authority is the power to investigate charges brought by employees, including the right to access “any evidence ... that relates to unlawful employment practices covered by [the statute],” id. § 2000e–8(a), as well as “the authority to issue administrative subpoenas and to request judicial enforcement of those subpoenas.” EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 63, 104 S.Ct. 1621, 80 L.Ed.2d 41 (1984) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–9 ).

The district court plays a “limited” role in the enforcement of administrative subpoenas. EEOC v. City of Norfolk Police Dep't., 45 F.3d 80, 82 (4th Cir.1995)

. “The [judicial review] process is not one for a determination of the underlying claim on its merits; Congress has delegated that function to the discretion of the administrative agency. Rather, courts should look only to the jurisdiction of the agency to conduct such an investigation.” EEOC v. Am. & Efird Mills, Inc., 964 F.2d 300, 303 (4th Cir.1992) (per curiam).

That jurisdictional question is central to the instant dispute. Both parties agree on the key factual issue that Escalante held no valid work authorization when he was hired by Maritime. They disagree on how Escalante's undocumented status affects the EEOC's authority to investigate his charges. Maritime argues that someone lacking proper work authorization was never qualified for employment and therefore lacks any cause of action or remedy under Title VII. According to appellee, “[a] valid charge of discrimination ‘is a jurisdictional prerequisite to judicial enforcement of a subpoena issue[d] by the EEOC.’ ” Appellee's Br. 3–4 (quoting EEOC v. United Air Lines, Inc., 287 F.3d 643, 650 (7th Cir.2002)

(quoting Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. at 65, 104 S.Ct. 1621 )). Without a valid charge from the employee presenting a viable cause of action, the court cannot enforce the EEOC's subpoena against the employer.

The Commission responds that it is not obligated to demonstrate valid causes of action or remedies under Title VII when seeking to subpoena information. All it must show is that an “arguable” or “plausible” basis for its jurisdiction exists and that its investigative authority is “not plainly lacking.” Appellant's Br. 10 (quoting EEOC v. Randstad, 685 F.3d...