Vincent DeBlaze, MDC's Vice President for Human Resources during the relevant time period, testified by deposition that age was not considered as a factor in the RIF process. According to Kearns, the difference in layoff rates of employees older and younger than 55 "is highly statistically significant." In 1973, the Supreme Court issued the famous McDonnell Douglas decision in which it set forth the shifting burden test in a Title VII case, where there is no direct evidence of employment discrimination or discriminatory intent. The Plaintiff has not refuted this assertion.Sign up to receive the Free Law Project newsletter with tips and announcements. When a FOIA request for the documents was filed by an attorney for an individual discrimination plaintiff, the EEOC initially determined that the adverse impact analyses were exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA exemption 4.
By letter dated June 8, 1994, the regional attorney for the EEOC's St. Louis district office informed McDonnell Douglas that a FOIA request for copies of "reduction in force systems, adverse impact analyses" for the MDMSC had been received and requested MDC's comments on the applicability of exemption 4 to these documents. It went on to suggest a procedure for the submission of privileged documents to the agency. This conclusion ignores the fact that subpoenaed parties may challenge, both administratively and through objections to enforcement proceedings, the Commission's subpoenas. Plaintiff McDonnell Douglas Corporation (MDC) asks the Court to enjoin the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from releasing to a third party documents MDC produced to the EEOC during a discrimination investigation. The same letter that makes that statement contains a lengthy argument that the documents are exempt under the The Court concludes that the documents were produced voluntarily, and that to the extent the EEOC found that they were not, that finding was not supported by the administrative record, and was arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion and contrary to law.The next question is whether MDC customarily disclosed the documents to the public. EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 960 F. Supp. MDC's attorney-client privilege objection was upheld in all cases in which motions to compel were filed. 6 17 F.3d at 1278-79 (“[T]he rule articulated in G ross has no logical effect on the application of McDonnell Douglas to age discrimination claims.”) (citing G ross, 557 U.S. at 175 n.2). Plaintiff further argues that the adverse impact analyses are exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption 3, and two Title VII sections which prohibit disclosure of documents acquired by the EEOC during investigation and conciliation, 42 U.S.C. In January 1991, MDC implemented a second reduction in force affecting approximately another 5,000 employees in the St. Louis area.2. According to the EEOC's anecdotal evidence, however, age 55 was significant in many layoff decisions because it was generally the age of eligibility for retirement benefits. The McDonnell Douglas Missile Systems Company ("MDMSC") prepared adverse impact analyses, at the request of its attorneys, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice about the legal ramifications of these reductions in force. )Finally, the EEOC has submitted affidavits and excerpts of depositions of numerous former MDC employees who were laid off in the relevant time period when they were 55 or older, as well as excerpts of depositions of individuals in the decision-making chain. §§ 701-706.MDC had delivered the "adverse impact analyses" at issue here to the EEOC as part of the EEOC's investigation of possible pattern and practice discrimination arising out of two large-scale reductions in force at McDonnell Douglas. Respondent, a black citizen of St. Louis, worked for petitioner as a mechanic and laboratory technician from 1956 until August 28, 1964, [ Footnote 1 ] when he was laid off in the course of a general reduction in petitioner's workforce. § 552, the Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C.