DamianaOchoaworked for eight years in a physically demandingjob forpetitionerMcLaneCo.,asupply-chainservicescompany.McLane requires employees in those positionsboth new employees and those returning from medical leaveto take a physical evaluation. When Ochoa returned from three months of maternity leave, she failedtheevaluationthreetimesandwasfired.Shethenfiledasex discriminationchargeunderTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964. TheEqualEmploymentOpportunity(EEOC)begananinvestigation, butMcLanedeclineditsrequestforso-calledpedigreeinformation: names, Social Security numbers, addresses, and telephone numbers ofemployeesaskedtotaketheevaluation.AftertheEEOCexpanded the investigations scope both geographically (to coverMcLanes national operations) andsubstantively (to investigate possible age discrimination), it issued subpoenas, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. 2000e9,requestingpedigree informationrelatingto itsnew investigation. When McLane refused to provide the information, the EEOCfiledtwoactionsinFederalDistrictCourtonearisingoutof Ochoas charge and one arising out of the EEOCs own agediscrimination chargeseeking enforcement of its subpoenas. The District Judge declined to enforce the subpoenas, finding that the pedigree informationwasnotrelevanttothecharges,buttheNinth Circuit reversed. Reviewing the District Courts decision to quash thesubpoenade novo,thecourtconcludedthatthelowercourterred infindingthepedigreeinformationirrelevant. Held:AdistrictcourtsdecisionwhethertoenforceorquashanEEOC subpoena should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo.

Do you think EEOC has the right for the information they were asking for? Do you think the information was relevant to their case. Why or why not.