## Facts

- Sidley demoted 32 equity partners to “counsel” or “senior counsel,” an adverse personnel action for purposes of federal antidiscrimination law.
- The EEOC opened an investigation into whether the demotions, and a related mandatory retirement policy, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
- The EEOC issued a subpoena duces tecum seeking documents on two topics: (1) whether the demoted partners were “employees” covered by the ADEA (coverage), and (2) whether age discrimination occurred (merits).
- Sidley produced some information but refused full compliance, asserting the individuals were “real partners” and therefore not ADEA-covered employees.
- The EEOC petitioned the Northern District of Illinois to enforce the subpoena; the district court ordered full compliance.
- Sidley appealed the enforcement order to the Seventh Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly enforced an EEOC subpoena seeking information to determine whether demoted law-firm equity partners were “employees” covered by the ADEA.
2. Whether Sidley’s assertion and partial production showing the individuals were “real partners” could limit or terminate the EEOC’s investigation.
3. Whether and how a court enforcing an EEOC subpoena should sequence production of “coverage” materials versus “merits” materials.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit vacated the subpoena-enforcement order and remanded.
- The court held the EEOC was entitled to enforce the subpoena as to documents relevant to coverage (employee status under the ADEA).
- The court rejected Sidley’s attempt to block investigation by relying on partner titles and its own characterization of the individuals as employers rather than employees.
- The court directed the district court to separate coverage-related demands from merits-related demands and to assess, after coverage discovery, whether compelling merits discovery was warranted.
- The court held the enforcement order was a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it ended the only judicial proceeding (subpoena enforcement).

## Legal Principles

- The EEOC may investigate potential ADEA violations without first proving a violation; subpoenaed material need only be relevant to the investigation.
- A person labeled a “partner” may still qualify as an ADEA-covered employee; functional control and the “economic realities” of the relationship can matter more than formal titles.
- In subpoena enforcement where statutory coverage is disputed, a court may require production of coverage-related information first and then evaluate whether further merits-related production should be compelled.
- A district court order enforcing an administrative subpoena is generally final and immediately appealable when it conclusively resolves the enforcement proceeding.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit confirmed that the EEOC can compel production of information needed to determine whether demoted law-firm partners are employees under the ADEA, while requiring the district court on remand to sequence subpoena compliance by addressing coverage before compelling broader merits-related production.


EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 315 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2002)