{"id":1648,"date":"2024-07-12T13:50:14","date_gmt":"2024-07-12T17:50:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1648"},"modified":"2024-07-12T13:50:14","modified_gmt":"2024-07-12T17:50:14","slug":"minnesota-federal-court-imposes-100-per-day-civil-contempt-sanctions-for-companys-continued-failure-to-comply-with-an-eeoc-subpoena","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/07\/12\/minnesota-federal-court-imposes-100-per-day-civil-contempt-sanctions-for-companys-continued-failure-to-comply-with-an-eeoc-subpoena\/","title":{"rendered":"Minnesota Federal Court Imposes $100 Per Day Civil Contempt Sanctions For Company\u2019s Continued Failure To Comply With An EEOC Subpoena"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em>: <\/strong>In EEOC v. Cambridge Transportation., Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118857 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024), Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota accepted<\/a> U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster\u2019s Report and Recommendation<\/a> (see EEOC v. Cambridge Transportation, Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121147 (D. Minn. June 10, 2024)) to impose civil contempt sanctions against Cambridge Transportation Inc. for its failure to comply with an EEOC subpoena.\u00a0 The EEOC sought documents in its administrative charge investigation into Title VII discrimination allegations on behalf of a former Cambridge Transportation, Inc. worker.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

The Court ordered<\/u> payment to the EEOC of $100 per day for each day Cambridge Transportation, Inc. remains out of compliance beginning on June 7, 2024.\u00a0 Over one month later, Cambridge remains out of compliance based on the docket.\u00a0 This ruling is a warning admonisiton for employers facing EEOC subpoenas and the seriousness for any alleged non-compliance with the Commission\u2019s investigation process.<\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background <\/strong><\/p>\n

On October 19, 2023, the EEOC petitioned for an Application for and Order to Show Cause Why Administrative Subpoena Should Not Be Enforced (the \u201cApplication\u201d) against Respondent Cambridge Transportation, Inc. (\u201cCambridge\u201d).\u00a0 (See United States EEOC v. Cambridge Transp., Inc.<\/em>, No. 0:23-MC-00101, ECF No. 1.)\u00a0 The EEOC\u2019s subpoena duces tecum <\/em>sought information from Cambridge regarding a charge of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\u00a0 (See id<\/em>.)\u00a0 In the underlying charge, Charging Party Becky Blechinger alleged that Cambridge \u201cdiscriminated against her on the bases of her sex (female), race (white), national origin (United States) and disability by paying a higher rate of compensation to men of Somalian national origin,\u201d who worked at Cambridge.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 2, at 2.)<\/p>\n

On November 1, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause for the EEOC\u2019s Application.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 7.) \u00a0On November 21, 2023, the EEOC provided a status report that reflected it had not effectuated service on Cambridge.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 9)<\/p>\n

On December 19, 2023, the EEOC filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 12.)\u00a0 Therein, the EEOC stated Cambridge responded and acknowledged receipt of the Court\u2019s order to show cause and further indicated that Cambridge intended to produce the documents identified in the EEOC\u2019s Application by December 26, 2023.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>)\u00a0 The following day the Court stayed the case.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 13.)<\/p>\n

On January 25, 2024, the EEOC filed another status report with a request due to Cambridge\u2019s failure to comply with the subpoena. Thereafter, the Court entered an order for hearing on the EEOC\u2019s Application.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF Nos. 14 & 15.)\u00a0 On February 22, 2024, Cambridge attended the hearing via telephone through its non-attorney registered agent.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 18.)<\/p>\n

On February 27, 2024, the Court granted the EEOC\u2019s Application and determined that Cambridge must comply with the subpoena or otherwise the Court may find Cambridge in civil contempt and impose a daily fine for each day Cambridge remains out of compliance.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 20.)<\/p>\n

On May 14, 2024, the EEOC provided a status report to the Court and reiterated that Cambridge failed to comply with the subpoena and requested the Court impose a civil fine of $800 per day, for each day past May 14, 2024, that Cambridge remains non-compliant.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 23.)<\/p>\n

On May 20, 2024, the Court ordered a hearing on the EEOC\u2019s Application and required Cambridge to retain counsel to enter an appearance on its behalf to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to comply with the Court\u2019s February 27 order.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 25.)\u00a0 On June 7, 2024, the hearing occurred and Cambridge did not appear.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, ECF No. 27.)<\/p>\n

The Magistrate\u2019s Report and Recommendation and the District Court Judge\u2019s Finding<\/strong><\/p>\n

On June 10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued his Report and Recommendation.\u00a0 (See United States EEOC v. Cambridge Transp., Inc., <\/em>No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121147 (D. Minn. June 10, 2024).\u00a0 The report detailed the continued failures of Cambridge to respond to the Agency\u2019s subpoena and efforts to enforce its subpoena.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, at *1-6.)<\/p>\n

The Court opined Cambridge had \u201cample time to retain counsel, for its alleged counsel to enter an appearance and to ensure its counsel either would be available to attend the show cause hearing or move to reschedule it\u201d and \u201cdespite having months,\u201d it had \u201cfaile[d] to do so and made no efforts to explain that failure or seek more time to comply.\u201d\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, at *5.)\u00a0 As a result, the Court found Cambridge waived all of its defenses to the EEOC\u2019s motion and request for sanctions.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, at *5-6.)<\/p>\n

The Court reiterated its authority that it \u201cmay hold a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena or an order related to it.\u201d\u00a0 (See id, <\/em>at *6) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(g).)\u00a0 The Court found Cambridge\u2019s continued non-compliance with the subpoena warranted contempt and imposition of monetary sanctions.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>)\u00a0 The Court\u2019s recommendation was not made \u201clightly, but Cambridge\u2019s intransigent refusal to cooperate\u201d left the Court with few other options.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

On the requested $800 per day fine from the EEOC, the Court reasoned at this stage that it was not justified at this stage.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>)\u00a0 The Court instead recommended an initial daily fine of \u201c$100 per day for each day Cambridge remains noncompliant with the subpoena beginning June 7, 2024, the date of the show cause hearing, and continuing until Cambridge satisfactorily complies.\u201d\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>, at *7.)\u00a0 The Court further held \u201cadditional sanctions and penalties may be warranted in the future\u201d if Cambridge\u2019s failure to comply continues.\u00a0 (See id.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

The District Court Judge found no clear error in the Magistrate Judge Foster\u2019s recommendation and report.\u00a0 (United States EEOC v. Cambridge Transp., Inc., <\/em>No. 0:23-MC-00101, <\/em>2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118857, at * 1 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024).)\u00a0 In so holding, the Court adopted the report in full, and found Cambridge in civil contempt and ordered payment of $100 per day for each day Cambridge remains out of compliance with the EEOC\u2019s subpoena, beginning on June 7, 2024.\u00a0 (Id.<\/em>)\u00a0 The Court left open whether any additional sanctions and penalties may apply.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

This recommendation and report, and resulting Court order, illustrates the length to which the EEOC will go to enforce its investigation of allegations of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.\u00a0 Companies should recognize the EEOC\u2019s enforcement efforts have teeth, and heed the Court\u2019s response that imposed a daily fine based on total non-compliance.<\/p>\n

Companies should take measures to ensure compliance with any EEOC request for information and respond accordingly, and promptly, to any investigation including subpoena requests.\u00a0 Otherwise, Companies may find themselves footing a $100 bill for every day of non-compliance and possibly expose themselves to further civil contempt sanctions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and George J. Schaller Duane Morris Takeaways: In EEOC v. Cambridge Transportation., Inc., No. 0:23-MC-00101, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118857 (D. Minn. July 8, 2024), Judge Nancy E. Brasel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota accepted U.S. Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster\u2019s Report … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Minnesota Federal Court Imposes $100 Per Day Civil Contempt Sanctions For Company\u2019s Continued Failure To Comply With An EEOC Subpoena”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9,96],"class_list":["post-1648","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eeoc-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"term_id":96,"user_id":655,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gschaller","display_name":"George Schaller","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/07\/schallergeorge-100x100.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1648","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1648"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1648\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1648"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1648"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1648"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1648"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}