from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:16-mc-50588-Arthur J.
Tarnow, District Judge.
Mayfield, DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan,
Jill M. Wheaton, DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
L. Gantz, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before: NORRIS, MOORE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge.
case concerns the scope of evidence that Plaintiff-Appellee
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC")
may obtain in investigating charges of discrimination. Sinisa
Matovski, an operations manager for Defendant-Appellant
United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS") who has a
disability, filed an EEOC charge claiming that UPS
discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"). In
particular, Matovski claims that UPS published confidential
medical information about him and other employees on its
intranet page. The EEOC began an investigation into
Matovski's claims, which resulted in a subpoena that
requested information about how UPS stored and disclosed
employee medical information. UPS opposed the subpoena,
claiming that the requested information was irrelevant to
Matovski's charge. This resulted in the EEOC filing an
application to enforce the subpoena. The district court
granted the application, and UPS has appealed. Because the
information that the EEOC requests "relates to unlawful
employment practices" covered by the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-8(a) (2012), we AFFIRM the
judgment of the district court.
origin of this appeal is an EEOC charge that Matovski filed
on March 25, 2014. R. 1 (Mar. 25, 2014 Charge) (Page ID #30).
The first portion of Matovski's charge claims that UPS
violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d), which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of "medical examinations and
inquiries." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(1). Of particular
concern was a September 2013 request for medical leave that
UPS published on its Health and Safety intranet site. R. 1
(Mar. 25, 2014 Charge) (Page ID #30). Matovski requested that
his information, which included his "condition and
symptoms and basis for [his] leave, " be removed from
the site. Id. However, "it remain[ed]
accessible to other UPS employees as of" February 16,
2015. Id.; R. 1 (Feb. 16, 2015 Charge) (Page ID
#32). Matovski filed an amended EEOC charge on February 16,
2015, which stated in addition, "I am aware that all
other employees subject to Health and Safety incident
action/reports have had their confidentiality breached in the
same manner as me." R. 1 (Feb. 16, 2015 Charge) (Page ID
also claimed that, since he disclosed his disability and
complained of discrimination, he had "been subjected to
heightened scrutiny of [his] performance and subjected to
negative treatment that [his] peers who do not have
disabilities do not face." R. 1 (Mar. 25, 2014 Charge)
(Page ID #30). Specifically, he claimed that "[i]n the
spring of 2013 and again in October of 2013, [he] complained
to Human Resources about what [he] believed to be
discriminatory treatment based on [his] disability and need
for accommodation, and since [he] raised these concerns, the
negative treatment of [him] has accelerated."
of its investigation into these charges, the EEOC issued a
subpoena for five pieces of evidence, three of which are at
issue in this appeal. The first request was for "a copy, in
Excel, or Comma Separated Values Format (CSV), of the year
end 'SCS-CSI H & S' report for the years 2013 to
the present." R. 1 (Subpoena) (Page ID #35). This report
contains information about employee injuries and accidents,
including "the nature and location of the injury and
accident, the injury type, whether the injury or accident is
an OSHA type event, the District of the employee, business
unit of the employee, and when not identified as a privacy
case, information such as the employee's name, and
employee identification number." R. 1 (UPS's Pet. at
1-2) (Page ID #41-42). The EEOC estimates that "there
could be six, seven hundred people just on . . . one
worksheet within this Excel file that contains multiple
worksheets." R. 11 (Mot. Hr'g Tr. at 8) (Page ID
#124). The second request was for "a copy of the
'privacy case' criteria and all documents regarding
its implementation and creation." R. 1 (Subpoena) (Page
ID #35). The EEOC explained that it seeks this information
"to understand how UPS is determining what is a privacy
case. Are they acknowledging theoretically that some of this
is confidential information that shouldn't be shared with
all managerial employees throughout the country[?]" R.
11 (Mot. Hr'g Tr. at 16) (Page ID #132). The third
request was for "a copy of the 'RiskConsul'
Oracle Database in Ecel [sic] or CVS [sic] format that
replaced the 'SCS-CSI H & S' report, from the
date of implementation to the present." R. 1 (Subpoena)
(Page ID #35).
petitioned the EEOC to modify the subpoena, arguing that some
of the requested information was irrelevant and burdensome,
R. 1 (UPS's Pet. at 4) (Page ID #44), but the EEOC denied
UPS's petition, R. 1 (EEOC's Determination on
UPS's Pet. at 1) (Page ID #56). The EEOC then filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan its application for an order to show cause why an
administrative subpoena should not be enforced. R. 1 (Appl.)
(Page ID #1-24). After holding a hearing on the EEOC's
application, R. 11 (Mot. Hr'g Tr.) (Page ID #117-36); R.
14 (Nov. 3, 2016 Order) (Page ID #148-49), the district court
ordered UPS to comply with the first three requests in the
EEOC's subpoena, R. 7 (July 21, 2016 Order) (Page ID
#111-12), "for the reasons that the EEOC has put on the
record and in their brief, " R. 11 (Mot. Hr'g Tr. at
19) (Page ID #135). This appeal follows. R. 8 (Notice of
Appeal) (Page ID #113-14). The district court had
jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 161(2), and we have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Standard of Review
subpoena enforcement proceeding is a summary process designed
to decide expeditiously whether a subpoena should be
enforced." EEOC v. Roadway Express, Inc.
(Roadway Express I), 750 F.2d 40, 42 (6th Cir.
1984). Generally speaking, the purpose is not to decide the
merits of the underlying claim. Id. We review
"a district court's decision to enforce an EEOC
subpoena . . . for abuse of discretion." McLane Co.
v. EEOC, 581 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. ...