holding materials related to other tenure candidates in a “similar time frame” were “relevant and not overbroad” in EEOC’s investigation of charge alleging discriminatory denial of tenure because they might provide useful comparison data and help determine whether there was a “pattern of discrimination”
How later courts described this case
- holding materials related to other tenure candidates in a “similar time frame” were “relevant and not overbroad” in EEOC’s investigation of charge alleging discriminatory denial of tenure because they might provide useful comparison data and help determine whether there was a “pattern of discrimination”
- finding EEOC request to use records of all tenure candidates over a three and one-half year period for comparative analysis to not be overbroad
- “[T]he Supreme Court [has] ... rejected the proposition that a district court must find the charge of discrimination to be well-founded, verifiable, or based on reasonable suspicion before enforcing an EEOC subpoena.”
- examining legislative history of Title VII
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*122 STATEMENT SUR DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
ADAMS, Acting Chief Judge.
I would grant rehearing in banc because of the significant First Amendment implications this case holds for our colleges and universities as well as the division among the circuit courts of appeals. Federal court review of university decisions carries serious consequences for academic freedom. Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 250 , 77 S.Ct. 1203 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1311 (1957); Galda v. Rutgers, 772 F.2d 1060 (3d Cir.1985) (Adams, J., dissenting). The tenure decision at issue here reduces in essence to the faculty’s determination of who may teach, one of what Justice Frankfurter referred to as “ ‘the four essential freedoms of a university.’ ” Sweezy, 354 U.S. at 263 , 77 S.Ct. at 1218 . Yet the discovery order upheld by the panel allows for a broad sweep of files revealing the internal debate over tenure votes, without any demonstration of special'need. In recognition of the threat this may pose to unrestrained discussion within the academic community, two other circuit courts of appeals have fashioned contrasting approaches to that adopted by the panel here. Given this split in authority, and given the importance of the issue, I believe the matter merits the consideration of the entire court.