SCOTUScast

McLane Co. v. EEOC - Post-Decision SCOTUScast


Listen Later

On April 3, 2017, the Supreme Court decided McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2008, Damiana Ochoa filed a sex discrimination charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against her former employer McLane Co., Inc., a supply-chain services company, when she failed a physical evaluation three times after returning from maternity leave. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) launched an investigation into Ochoa’s charge, but McLane declined the EEOC’s request for “pedigree information,” meaning names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers of those employees who had taken the physical evaluation. The EEOC then expanded its investigation into McLane’s operations nationwide and possible age discrimination, issuing subpoenas to McLane for pedigree information regarding these matters too. McLane refused to provide this information as well, and the EEOC then filed actions in federal district court to enforce the subpoenas issued regarding both Ochoa’s charge and the EEOC’s own age discrimination charge. The District Court quashed the subpoenas, finding the pedigree information irrelevant to the charges, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, applying a plenary or “de novo” standard of review, reversed. Other U.S. Courts of Appeals, however, apply a more deferential “abuse of discretion” standard in such situations, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split among the Courts of Appeals. -- By a vote of 7-1, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the court held that a district court’s decision whether to enforce or quash a subpoena issued by the EEOC should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo. Justice Sotomayor’s opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy, and Thomas. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Ellen Springer, an Associate at Baker Botts, LLP.
...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

SCOTUScastBy The Federalist Society

  • 4.5
  • 4.5
  • 4.5
  • 4.5
  • 4.5

4.5

106 ratings


More shows like SCOTUScast

View all
FedSoc Events by The Federalist Society

FedSoc Events

88 Listeners

FedSoc Forums by The Federalist Society

FedSoc Forums

84 Listeners

Faculty Division Bookshelf by The Federalist Society

Faculty Division Bookshelf

8 Listeners

RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast by The Federalist Society

RTP's Fourth Branch Podcast

28 Listeners

Necessary & Proper Podcast by The Federalist Society

Necessary & Proper Podcast

47 Listeners

Uncommon Knowledge by Hoover Institution

Uncommon Knowledge

2,009 Listeners

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg by All-In Podcast, LLC

All-In with Chamath, Jason, Sacks & Friedberg

9,920 Listeners

Camano Chapel Podcast by Camano Chapel

Camano Chapel Podcast

7 Listeners