EEOC data requests to law firms were not mandatory, agency says in court filing
Briefly

EEOC sent March 17 letters to 20 BigLaw firms requesting detailed information about diversity-program applicants and other attorney job seekers. The agency characterizes the letters as informal information gathering rather than mandatory demands. Most firms provided no requested information, and those that did withheld identifying names, phone numbers, email addresses, and other contact details. The EEOC filed a July 31 motion seeking dismissal of a lawsuit by three anonymous law students, arguing the students lack standing because no identifying data was collected. The student plaintiffs allege the EEOC overstepped by demanding sensitive personal information and attempted to bypass formal charge requirements.
A letter to 20 BigLaw firms seeking detailed information about diversity-program applicants and other attorney job seekers constituted "informal information gathering" rather than a mandatory demand, according to a court filing by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Most of the 20 law firms did not provide any information requested by the EEOC, and those that did reply did not include identifying information about any specific individual, according to the July 31 EEOC filing seeking to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the information gathering.
Any information provided to the EEOC did not include individual names, phone numbers, email addresses or other contact information, the motion says, and as a result, the law students who sued lack standing. And if the plaintiffs were found to be injured, any harm would be caused by independent decisions of law firms receiving the letters, rather than the EEOC request, according to the motion.
The March 17 letters by EEOC acting chair Andrea Lucas expressed concerns about the firms' diversity hiring practices, saying they may amount to discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The student plaintiffs had alleged the EEOC acted beyond its authority when it demanded sensitive personal information about the law firms' applicants and employees dating back six to 10 years. The students applied to or worked at one or more of the law firms.
Read at ABA Journal
[
|
]