11th Circuit: The EEOC can't Always get what it Wants

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently shouted down the EEOC's broad subpoena powers when it held that the Commission wasn't entitled to hiring and firing information relating to Royal Caribbean's workers and job applicants who were not U.S. citizens, because that information had no bearing on the charge before the EEOC.

In 2010, Jose Morabito, an Argentinean national who was employed by Royal Caribbean as an assistant waiter on one of its cruise ships, filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.  In his charge, Mr. Morabito claimed Royal Caribbean violated the ADA when it failed to renew his employment contract after he was diagnosed with a medical condition.  Royal Caribbean responded to the charge by arguing (1) that the ADA was not applicable because Mr. Morabito was a foreign national who was employed on a ship flying the flag of the Bahamas, and (2) that, because Royal Caribbean ships are registered under the laws of the Bahamas, Royal Caribbean was required to follow the Bahamas Maritime Authority ("BMA") medical standards for seafarers, which disqualified Mr. Morabito from duty. 

After receiving Royal Caribbean's position statement, the EEOC issued an administrative subpoena that requested, among other things, a list of all employees who were discharged or whose contracts were not renewed due to a medical reason and a list of all persons who applied for a position within the relevant period but who were not hired due to a medical reason.  Royal Caribbean complied in part by providing records for employees and applicants who were United States citizens.  Royal Caribbean objected to providing information relating to any foreign nationals, however, arguing that the statute at issue in Mr. Morabito's charge, the ADA, did not cover foreign nationals, and therefore, any information relating to same would be irrelevant. 

The EEOC filed a petition to compel the rest of the records that Royal Caribbean refused to produce.  The magistrate judge who initially heard the petition recommended that it be denied because the information sought was not relevant to Mr. Morabito’s charge and because compliance with the disputed portion of the subpoena would be unduly burdensome.  The district court judge agreed, and the employee appealed.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit affirmed, reasoning that while there may be some situations in which statistical data may be relevant, this was not one of them.  The Court noted the standard by which the EEOC's subpoena power is governed is whether the information sought "is relevant to the charge under investigation."  More specifically, the 11th Circuit concluded that "[t]he relevance necessary to support a subpoena for the investigation of an individual charge is relevance to the contested issues that must be decided to resolve the charge, not relevance to issues that may be contested when and if future charges are brought by others."  The Circuit also agreed with the magistrate judge and district court judge that compliance with the disputed portion of the EEOC's subpoena would be unduly burdensome.

The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in this case, EEOC v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., No. 13-13519 (11th Cir. Nov. 6, 2014), highlights that just because the EEOC asserts that certain information is relevant to a pending claim does not make it so. Employers should keep this decision in mind as a tool to be used against an overly-aggressive EEOC investigation.