The Second Circuit recently reinforced the broad scope of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) investigative authority under Title VII. In In re AAM Holding Corp., 153 F.4th 252 (2d Cir. 2025), the court held that the EEOC may continue investigating a discrimination charge, including issuing and enforcing administrative subpoenas, even after the charging party receives a right-to-sue letter and files a civil lawsuit.
The Case: AAM Holding Corp., 153 F.4th 252 (2d Cir. 2025)
The case arose from an EEOC investigation into allegations of widespread sexual harassment and a hostile work environment at two Manhattan adult entertainment clubs. During the investigation, the EEOC sought employee pedigree information from the employers, including names, contact information, positions, and dates of employment. The employers objected, claiming that the requested information was irrelevant and too burdensome to produce. The EEOC then issued subpoenas, which the district court enforced.
The clubs then appealed the district court’s decision and moved to stay enforcement. While the appeal was pending, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter to the complainant-employee, who commenced a putative class action against the employers. In light of these events, the employers argued to the Court of Appeals that the EEOC’s authority to continue investigating the charge had been terminated and so the subpoenas should no longer be enforced.
The Second Circuit disagreed. Looking at the text and structure of Title VII, the court found no provision ending the EEOC’s investigative authority once a right-to-sue letter is issued or a private lawsuit is filed. On the contrary, the court emphasized that the EEOC serves a broad public-enforcement role in employment discrimination laws that extend beyond the interests of any individual charging party. As a result, the agency may continue investigating a charge while parallel private litigation is pending.
In reaching that conclusion, the court expressly declined to follow the Fifth Circuit’s decision in EEOC v. Hearst Corp., which held that the EEOC’s investigative authority ends when a charging party receives a right-to-sue letter and files suit. The Second Circuit found no basis in Title VII for drawing such a bright-line rule. With this holding, the Second Circuit joins the Seventh and Ninth circuits in granting the EEOC broad investigative powers that extend beyond the initial investigation period.
On the merits, the court also rejected challenges to the subpoenas themselves. It held that employee pedigree information was relevant to the EEOC’s investigation of alleged companywide discriminatory practices, and that the employers failed to meet the very high standard for quashing an EEOC subpoena on burdensomeness grounds because they did not demonstrate that compliance would unduly disrupt their business operations.
The Takeaway
For employers in the Second Circuit, the practical lesson is straightforward: the issuance of a right-to-sue letter does not necessarily mark the end of an EEOC investigation. Instead, employers may face parallel proceedings arising from the same charge, a private lawsuit and an ongoing EEOC investigation.
As to the subpoenas themselves, the decision makes clear that the bar for challenging EEOC requests on relevance or burden grounds is extremely high. For all these reasons, employers defending EEOC investigations should retain experienced employment counsel to help them navigate this legal landscape in the Second Circuit.
