Introduction

On 25 August 2025 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a precedent-setting decision in EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp., clarifying that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) keeps its full investigative and subpoena authority even after it issues a right-to-sue letter and the charging party files a private civil action.

The dispute arose when Eunice Raquel Flores Thomas, a former dancer at two Manhattan adult entertainment clubs (operated by AAM Holding Corp. and 59 Murray Street Enterprises, Inc.), filed a class charge alleging pervasive sexual harassment and hostile work environment. The EEOC issued subpoenas for “pedigree information” on all club employees. The clubs resisted, arguing the subpoenas were irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly burdensome and—critically—that the EEOC lost authority to investigate once Thomas received her right-to-sue letter and sued.

The Second Circuit rejected the employers’ arguments, squarely siding with the Ninth and Seventh Circuits and expressly disagreeing with the Fifth Circuit’s older contrary decision. The ruling cements the EEOC’s ability to pursue systemic discrimination investigations parallel to—and independent from—private litigation.

Summary of the Judgment

• Main Holding: The EEOC’s statutory power to investigate charges, including issuing and enforcing administrative subpoenas, is not extinguished by the issuance of a right-to-sue letter or by the charging party’s commencement of a private lawsuit.
• Relevance of Subpoenas: The requested employee pedigree data was relevant to allegations of class-wide sexual harassment; Title VII’s relevance standard is “generous” and easily satisfied here.
• Undue Burden: The clubs failed to show that compliance would unduly disrupt their business; bare assertions of a 300-hour burden, without contextual detail, were insufficient.
• Disposition: District court order enforcing the subpoenas affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The panel anchored its reasoning in Supreme Court precedent while acknowledging and resolving an existing circuit split.

• Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. EEOC, 432 U.S. 355 (1977) – affirmed the EEOC’s broad investigative function and the absence of strict time limits on its ability to sue.
• EEOC v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54 (1984) – established the “generous” relevance standard for EEOC subpoenas and tied investigative authority to the filed charge.
• Gen. Tel. Co. v. EEOC, 446 U.S. 318 (1980) – recognized that EEOC enforcement supplements, rather than supplants, private actions.
• EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002) – underscored the EEOC’s independent public-interest role in enforcement decisions.
• EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 103 F.3d 462 (5th Cir. 1997) – held the opposite view; the Second Circuit expressly declines to follow it.
• EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2009) and EEOC v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 867 F.3d 843 (7th Cir. 2017) – both upheld continuing EEOC authority post-right-to-sue; relied on by the court to align its position with the modern trend.
• McLane Co. v. EEOC, 581 U.S. 72 (2017) – set the abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review of district-court subpoena rulings, which the Second Circuit applied.

Legal Reasoning

Statutory Text. Title VII § 2000e-8(a) grants the EEOC access to relevant evidence “at all reasonable times” once a charge is filed. Nothing in the statute expressly terminates that access when a right-to-sue letter issues.

Structure of Title VII. The enforcement scheme is “integrated” but not rigidly sequential; investigation, conciliation, and litigation can overlap. The 120- and 180-day references in the statute are aspirational timing goals, not jurisdiction-stripping deadlines.

Public-Interest Mandate. Because the EEOC vindicates broader societal interests, its investigation may continue even if the private party settles or loses interest, ensuring systemic discrimination does not escape scrutiny.

Rejection of Hearst. The court criticized the Fifth Circuit’s stage-based approach as unsupported by statutory text and out of step with Supreme Court guidance. Aligning with the Ninth and Seventh Circuits promotes uniformity and reflects contemporary enforcement realities.

Application to the Subpoenas. • Relevance: Allegations of class-wide sexual harassment warranted information on all employees for context and witness identification.
• Burden: Employers offered no concrete evidence of operational disruption; partial compliance already achieved indicated feasibility.

Impact of the Decision

• National Uniformity: Deepens the split with the Fifth Circuit but aligns the Second Circuit with the Seventh and Ninth, signaling emerging consensus likely to influence other circuits and district courts.
• Broader Investigations: Employers facing EEOC charges can expect investigations—and subpoenas—to continue even after private litigation begins, increasing leverage for conciliation and discovery exposure.
• Strategic Considerations: Plaintiffs’ attorneys may request right-to-sue letters without worrying they will derail EEOC efforts, enabling simultaneous public and private enforcement tracks.
• Burden Arguments Narrowed: The case reiterates that employers must provide specific, quantifiable evidence to show undue burden; generic workload assertions will not suffice.
• Systemic Discrimination Focus: Enhances the EEOC’s ability to pursue pattern-or-practice claims, particularly in industries or workplaces where employees fear retaliation or high turnover impedes private suits.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Right-to-Sue Letter: A formal notice from the EEOC giving the charging party 90 days to file a private lawsuit in federal court.
• Pedigree Information: Basic identifying data (name, age, sex, race, job title, employment dates, and contact details) used to locate potential witnesses and analyze workforce demographics.
• Administrative Subpoena: A demand issued by an agency (here, the EEOC) compelling production of documents or testimony without needing prior court approval.
• Unduly Burdensome: A legal standard requiring proof that compliance would seriously disrupt ordinary business operations, not merely cause inconvenience or expense.
• Abuse-of-Discretion Review: Appellate deference to district-court fact-specific rulings; the decision will be reversed only if no reasonable judge could have reached the same conclusion.

Conclusion

EEOC v. AAM Holding Corp. marks an important advance in federal employment discrimination jurisprudence. By confirming that the EEOC’s subpoena power survives beyond the issuance of a right-to-sue letter and the filing of private litigation, the Second Circuit strengthens the agency’s ability to pursue systemic discrimination and protects the public interest in robust Title VII enforcement. Employers within the circuit—and likely beyond—must now assume that EEOC investigations can and will proceed in tandem with private lawsuits, and that broad pedigree subpoenas will generally withstand relevance and burden challenges unless the employer can marshal specific evidence of serious disruption. The decision therefore recalibrates litigation strategy for both management and plaintiffs’ counsel while aligning the Second Circuit with the modern, expansive view of EEOC authority.