## Facts

- Josephine Chavez, a former employee of Texas State Optical, filed a verified Title VII charge alleging national-origin discrimination (Spanish-surnamed American).
- Chavez alleged she was terminated without reason, was the only Spanish-surnamed employee among seven Caucasian females who abused her, and management cited “friction” despite satisfactory work.
- Chavez also alleged the employer was “segregating the patients.”
- The EEOC opened an investigation, served the charge on the employer, and sought documents; when voluntary production failed, the EEOC issued a Demand for Access to Evidence.
- The Demand sought information concerning Chavez and other employees and also patient-application data maintained by the business.
- The employer timely petitioned a federal district court to set aside or modify the Demand; the EEOC cross-petitioned to enforce it.
- The district court limited the EEOC’s access, effectively restricting investigation into matters related to the alleged segregation of patients.
- The EEOC appealed the limitation.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may restrict the EEOC’s investigative demand at the outset on the theory that the practice being investigated (including alleged patient segregation) is not an “unlawful employment practice” under Title VII.
2. Whether patient-related records sought by the EEOC were sufficiently relevant to a national-origin employment-discrimination charge to warrant enforcement of the EEOC’s demand.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s order limiting the EEOC’s access.
- The court enforced the EEOC’s Demand for Access to Evidence, including requested patient-application data.
- The court held that, at this preliminary investigative stage, it could not conclude with certainty that the acts alleged were outside Title VII’s prohibitions.
- A concurrence agreed with enforcement, though the judges differed on how the alleged acts should be interpreted on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- In proceedings to enforce an EEOC investigative demand, courts do not decide the ultimate merits of the charge or conclusively resolve statutory coverage.
- The EEOC may obtain evidence that is relevant to the charge under investigation; relevance is assessed broadly in light of the investigative function.
- A court should not “limit at the threshold” an EEOC investigation where the alleged conduct could plausibly relate to “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
- Employer practices affecting customers or patients may be investigable under Title VII when they may bear on employees’ working conditions or discriminatory environment.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit required enforcement of the EEOC’s investigative demand, concluding that early judicial narrowing of the investigation was improper where the requested evidence was plausibly relevant to a national-origin discrimination charge and the alleged conduct could implicate Title VII employment conditions.


Rogers v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, 454 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1971)