Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Quick Shop Markets, Inc.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. QUICK SHOP MARKETS, INC. and Thomas L. Tinsley, President
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 14 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Donovan v. Shaw
- Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (Formerly Ray Marshall) v. John A. Shaw, Trustee, Savings and Profit-Sharing Pension Fund of the Reliable Life Insurance Company Employees, Raymond J
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company
- EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Schwan's Home Service
- Shell Oil Co. v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Most recent
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Schwan's Home Service
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company
- Missouri Pacific Employes' Hospital Ass'n v. Donovan
- 30 Fair empl.prac.cas. 788, 30 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,212 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. K-Mart Corporation and K-Mart Enterprises, Inc., in Re Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. K-Mart Corp.
- Shell Oil Co. v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.