![]() ![]() ![]() Use of comparative evidence in an investigation. Party’s claims of pregnancy and disability discrimination, the court applied anĮxcessively restrictive definition of relevance – one that does not permit the Second, in holding that comparator evidence was not relevant to the charging May expand its scope beyond the practices specified in the original charge.”). 2015) (“If new facts come to light during an investigation, the EEOC (“Nothing prevents the EEOC from investigating the charges filed by, and then – if it ascertains some violation warranting aīroader investigation – expanding its search.”) E EOC v. Investigation based on legal violations it discovers in the process of ![]() Request, the ruling disregarded the Commission’s authority to broaden its First, in its failure specifically to address the subpoena’s first Subpoena for lack of relevance to the charging party’s claims erred in two 25, 26Īs the Commission explained in its openingīrief, the district court’s decision not to enforce the EEOC’s administrative 5ĮEOC, “Effective Position Statements,” availableĮEOC FOIA Reference Guide § XI, available at 11, 15įreedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C.ĥ U.S.C. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42Ĥ2 U.S.C. 14, 15, 17Īmericans with Disabilities Act of 1990, asĪmended, 42 U.S.C. Konica Minolta Business SolutionsĦ39 F.3d 366 (7th Cir. Cambridge Tile Manufacturing Co.,ĥ90 F.2d 205 (6th Cir. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad,Ħ69 F.3d 1154 (10th Cir. 10Ĭoncerns Do Not Justify TriCore’s Noncompliance with the Subpoena. 3ĮEOC is Entitled to Comparative Evidence Allowing It to Assess Guadiana’sĬharge. 3ĮEOC is Entitled to Investigate TriCore’s Admitted Violation of the ADA. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |