Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nestle Prepared Foods
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: GRANTING EEOC's 20 MOTION for Reconsideration but the relief requested is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 6/26/12.(KJR)cc: COR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
NESTLE PREPARED FOODS,
Respondent.
**
**
No. 5:11-mc-358-JMH-REW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
**
**
**
This matter is before the Court upon the EEOC’s motion for
reconsideration of the Court’s May 23, 2012 Order denying the
EEOC’s application to enforce subpoena no. IN-11-51S.
[DE 20].
On June 11, 2012, Nestle filed a response in opposition to the
EEOC’s motion.
[DE 21].
While the Court accepts the EEOC’s
invitation to consider its response to Nestle’s objections to
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
Recommended
Disposition,
the
relief
requested will be denied.
The Court recognizes that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(2), the EEOC should have been given the opportunity to
respond to Nestle’s objections prior to this Court’s issuance of
a ruling.
the
Accordingly, the Court considers the points raised in
EEOC’s
memorandum
reconsideration.
The
in
EEOC
support
contends
of
that
its
this
motion
for
Court
has
overlooked important facts, including the sworn statements of
Stephen Feamster, Nestle’s Human Resource Manager, and Dr. Paul
McLaughlin, the physician who examined charging party Michael
Peel.
Mr. Feamster affirmed that Nestle refers individuals for
fitness-for-duty
exams
to
various
physicians
in
Sterling area, “of which Dr. McLaughlin is one.”
the
Mount
Additionally,
Dr. McLaughlin affirmed that he considered Mr. Peel to be his
“patient”
medical
when
he
history
patients.”
examined
form
as
him,
a
and
that
“standard
he
uses
intake
form
a
family
for
all
These facts lie at the heart of what makes this a
close case and, in ruling on this matter, the Court was mindful
of the implication they create.
One could assume that Nestle
has referred other employees to Dr. McLaughlin and that he, in
the
course
information.
solely
to
of
examining
them,
has
obtained
protected
The subpoena does not seek information relating
examinations
performed
by
Dr.
McLaughlin,
however.
Rather, it requests information relating to “each physician to
whom
Nestle
referred
individuals
for
physical
or
medical
examinations” and “each individual who submitted to a physical
or medical examination.”
While the EEOC is correct that the
investigation of possible systemic discrimination need not be
based
on
multiple
charges
or
explicit
systemic
allegations,
here, there is no implication of systemic violations that would
justify the scope of the EEOC’s wide-reaching subpoena.
If this
subpoena were more narrowly drawn, perhaps the result would be
2
different.
As worded, however, the subpoena seeks information
beyond that which could reasonably shed light on Mr. Peel’s
charge and will not be enforced.
Having
Nestle’s
reviewed
objections
and
to
considered
the
the
Magistrate
EEOC’s
Judge’s
response
to
Recommended
Disposition of this matter, IT IS ORDERED that the EEOC’s motion
for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED, but the relief requested
is DENIED.
This the 26th day of June, 2012.
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?