EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, APPELLEE,
v.
QUICK SHOP MARKETS, INC. AND THOMAS L. TINSLEY, PRESIDENT, APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the District Court correctly found the EEOC had jurisdiction under Title VII to investigate the charge of hair-length discrimination and that the subpoenas were valid.
Appellants were required by the District Court to comply with two subpoenas duces tecum issued by the EEOC. The EEOC sought to investigate a charge th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Subpoena Duces Tecum Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
[*803] PER CURIAM.
We affirm an order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri requiring the appellants to comply with two subpoenas duces tecum.
The District Court correctly decided that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had jurisdiction pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., to investigate a charge that the appellants discriminated against two male employees by its hair-length regulations applying to males only. The agency has the initial responsibility to determine coverage of the Act, and we cannot foreclose the Commission from conducting its investigation to determine whether an unfair employment practice has been committed. See Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Wallings, 327 U.S. 186, 209, 214, 66 S.Ct. 494, 90 L.Ed. 614 (1946); New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Brown, 507 F. 2d 160, 164 (5th Cir. 1975). The agency decision when made is subject to review in an appropriate proceeding. Willingham v. Macon Telegraph Publishing Co., 507 F. 2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975); Baker v. California Land Title Company, 507 F. 2d 895 (9th Cir. 1974); Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 160 U.S.App.D.C. 9, 488 F. 2d 1333 (1973); Aros v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 348 F.Supp. 661 (C.D.Cal.1972); Donohue v. Shoe Corporation of America, 337 F.Supp. 1357 (C.D.Cal.1972).
The District Court’s holdings that the subpoenas called for relevant materials and were not burdensome or oppressive will not be disturbed. See Equal Employment Op. Com’n v. Western Pub. Co., Inc., 502 F. 2d 599, 603 (8th Cir. 1974); Circle K Corporation, Inc. v. Equal Employment Op. Com’n, 501 F. 2d 1052, 1054 (10th Cir. 1974); Motorola, Inc. v. McLain, 484 F. 2d 1339, 1346 (7th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 1935, 40 L.Ed.2d 287 (1974); Local No. 104, Sh. Met. Wkrs. Int. Ass’n v. Equal Emp. Op. Com’n, 439 F. 2d 237, 243 (9th Cir. 1971).
There is no merit to the appellants’ contention that the District Court denied them due process by failing to conduct a full evidentiary hearing prior to enforcing the subpoenas. See United States v. Davey, 426 F. 2d 842, 844-845 (2nd Cir. 1970); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. National Labor R. Board, 122 F. 2d 450, 451 (6th Cir. 1941).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. K-Mart Corp. & K-Mart Enters., Inc., 694 F.2d 1055 (6th Cir. 1982)
-
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. BAY Shipbuilding Corp., 668 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1981)
-
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Chrysler Corp., 567 F.2d 754 (8th Cir. 1977)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Okla. Press Publ'g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1946)
- Browndale Int'l, Ltd. v. Bd. of Adjustment for Dane Cnty., 416 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1974)
- Wichita Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 416 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1974)
- Willingham v. MacOn Tel. Publ'g Co., 507 F.2d 1084 (5th Cir. 1975)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 122 F.2d 450 (6th Cir. 1941)
- Local NO. 104, Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 439 F.2d 237 (9th Cir. 1971)
- Motorola, Inc. v. McLAIN, 484 F.2d 1339 (7th Cir. 1973)
- Dodge v. Giant Food, Inc., 488 F.2d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- Baker v. Cal. Land Title Co., 507 F.2d 895 (9th Cir. 1974)
- NEW Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Brown, 507 F.2d 160 (5th Cir. 1975)