Emerson Electric Co. v. Schlesinger
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 10270, 21 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 30,390, 609 F.2d 898 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A memorandum of understanding between federal agencies that facilitates the sharing of information for enforcement purposes is a procedural rule, not a substantive one, and is valid if authorized by the underlying statutes and executive orders governing the agencies. Such information sharing for official, non-public use between agencies with overlapping enforcement missions does not violate statutory confidentiality provisions like the Trade Secrets Act.
Facts:
- Emerson Electric Company and McDonnell Douglas Corporation are United States government contractors.
- As contractors, they are required by Executive Order 11246 to submit reports to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to ensure non-discriminatory employment practices.
- These submissions include annual 'affirmative action programs' (AAPs) and Employer Information (EEO-1) Reports, which contain detailed workforce analyses.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the OFCCP entered into a 1974 'Memorandum of Understanding' (MOU).
- The MOU stipulates that the two agencies will share reports and supporting documents submitted by contractors.
- The MOU also provides that any discrimination complaints filed with the OFCCP are automatically deemed to be charges filed with the EEOC.
Procedural Posture:
- Emerson Electric Co. and McDonnell Douglas Corp. challenged the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
- The District Court rejected the companies' arguments and granted the federal agencies' motion for summary judgment.
- Emerson Electric and McDonnell Douglas, as appellants, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Memorandum of Understanding between the EEOC and the OFCCP, which provides for the sharing of employer-submitted compliance documents and deems complaints filed with one agency as filed with the other, violate federal law by exceeding the agencies' authority or infringing on statutory protections for confidential information?
Opinions:
Majority - Heaney, Circuit Judge.
No. The Memorandum of Understanding is a valid procedural rule that does not violate federal law or exceed the agencies' authority. The court determined that the MOU is procedural, not substantive, because it governs inter-agency cooperation and does not create, diminish, or alter the rights and obligations of the contractors. An examination of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11246 reveals a clear intent for the agencies to cooperate and share information to efficiently enforce anti-discrimination laws. The court rejected the appellants' specific challenges, finding that: (1) the MOU does not circumvent Title VII's relevancy requirement, which applies to information sought directly from an investigated party, not from another agency; (2) the Federal Reports Act encourages, rather than prohibits, such inter-agency sharing to reduce duplication; and (3) the Trade Secrets Act is not violated because the disclosure is 'authorized by law' through the statutes and executive orders promoting agency cooperation, and the act is primarily intended to prevent public disclosure, not internal government exchanges.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the authority of federal agencies with overlapping jurisdictions to enter into formal agreements for information sharing, thereby streamlining enforcement and reducing governmental duplication of effort. It establishes that such inter-agency agreements are generally considered procedural rules, exempting them from the more stringent notice-and-comment requirements for substantive rulemaking. This ruling strengthens the government's ability to coordinate its civil rights enforcement efforts and clarifies that statutory confidentiality provisions are primarily aimed at protecting information from public disclosure, not from being shared between government bodies for official enforcement purposes.
