N.L.R.B. v. G.H.R. Energy Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Maryland Cup Corp.

    785 F.2d 471 (4th Cir. 1986)   Cited 68 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding EEOC's request was not unduly burdensome where company was required to inspect photos and interview employees in order to ascertain the race of former employees, even though compliance would cost $75,000

    Administrative subpoenas are subject only to limited review. See, e.g., NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982) (interpreting a statute granting subpoena power identical to that of the EEOC). Upon petitioning for enforcement of an administrative subpoena, the issuing agency must make a threshold showing that the subpoena is within the agency's authority, that the agency has satisfied statutory requirements of due process, and that the information' sought is relevant and material to the investigation.

  2. E.E.O.C. v. United Parcel Ser

    587 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2009)   Cited 24 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court applied "too restrictive a standard of relevance" when it denied enforcement of a subpoena seeking information regarding an employer's nationwide application of allegedly discriminatory policy

    I concur in the Court's opinion and write separately to consider the standard of review applicable to appellate consideration of a district court's determination of the relevance of information sought by an administrative subpoena. Preliminarily I note that with respect to review of the ultimate decision of a district court whether to enforce an administrative subpoena, it is generally said that the standard for appellate review is abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Ratliff v. Davis Polk Wardwell 354 F.3d 165, 168 (2d Cir. 2003); FTC v. GlaxoSmithKline, 294 F.3d 141, 146 (D.C. Cir. 2002); FDIC v. Wentz, 55 F.3d 905, 908 (3d Cir. 1995); NLRB v. Carolina Food Processors, 81 F.3d 507, 510 (4th Cir. 1996) (quoting NLRB v. G.H.R. Energy Corp., 707 F.2d 110, 113 (5th Cir. 1982)). A Sixth Circuit opinion has said that the appellate task is "to weigh the likely relevance of the requested material to the investigation against the burden to Ford of producing the material."