EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood - 315 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2002)

Rule:

Enforcement of a subpoena cannot be resisted on the ground that the information the agency is seeking would not justify an enforcement action. There is no general exception to the rule for issues going to the agency's jurisdiction. At the subpoena enforcement stage, courts need not determine whether the subpoenaed party is within the agency's jurisdiction or covered by the statute it administers; rather the coverage determination should wait until an enforcement action is brought against the subpoenaed party. 

Facts:

In 1999, Sidley & Austin (as it then was) demoted 32 of its equity partners to "counsel" or "senior counsel." The significance of these terms is unclear, but Sidley does not deny that they signify demotion and constitute adverse personnel action within the meaning of the antidiscrimination laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began an investigation to determine whether the demotions might have violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. After failing to obtain all the information it wanted without recourse to process, the EEOC issued a subpoena duces tecum to the firm, seeking a variety of documentation bearing on two distinct areas of inquiry: coverage and discrimination. The law firm challenged a decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division that enforced a subpoena that was sought by EEOC to determine whether the demotions of 32 of the law firm's equity partners might have violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The law firm argued: (1) that the question whether the 32 demoted partners were within the ADEA's coverage was a jurisdictional question; (2) the target of a subpoena need comply only up to the point at which it had produced evidence that there was no jurisdiction; and (3) the EEOC had no jurisdiction in the case because a partner was an employer within the meaning of the federal antidiscrimination laws if certain criteria were met. 

Issue:

Was the law firm’s contention that the question of whether the 32 demoted partners were within the ADEA's coverage was a jurisdictional question meritorious?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court vacated the district court's order and remanded with directions to order the law firm to comply fully with the part of the subpoena that requested documents that related to coverage, but upon completion of those submissions to make a determination whether the 32 demoted partners were arguably covered by the ADEA. The court rejected the law firm's jurisdictional argument; it was the law that the EEOC was entitled to obtain the facts necessary to determine whether it could proceed to the enforcement stage. However, the court noted that the subpoena could be challenged as unreasonable. The court noted that neither party addressed the question why some or all members of partnerships should for purposes of the federal anti-discriminatory laws be deemed employers and so placed outside the protection of the laws. The court found that not only did the law firm fail to argue the purpose of the exclusion of employers from the protection of the ADEA; it was also the EEOC. The court was not ruling that the 32 demoted partners were in fact employees.