Oklahoma Human Rights Commission v. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc.
14 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 136, 1975 OK 76, 536 P.2d 349 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency's statutory power to use written interrogatories, which adopts the procedure from the civil code, is limited to asking questions and cannot be used as a substitute for the production of documents. The agency must seek a court order under the Administrative Procedures Act to compel answers to proper interrogatories that are directly and materially related to the complaint being investigated.
Facts:
- Eleven employees of Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. filed twelve complaints with the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission, alleging discriminatory employment practices.
- Nine of the complaints alleged race discrimination, two alleged sex discrimination, and one complaint, filed by Bernice D. Byrd, alleged both race and sex discrimination.
- In its investigation, the Commission sent written interrogatories to Wilson Certified Foods, Inc.
- Most of the interrogatories required the company to prepare lists or furnish information compiled from its files, records, or documents.
- Two specific interrogatories, #45 and #46, asked how many Black and White female applicants there were during a specific period and how many Black female employees the company had employed in certain years.
- Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. objected to answering a portion of the interrogatories, arguing some were not relevant and that the information sought was not separately recorded or maintained.
Procedural Posture:
- Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. filed objections with the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission against certain written interrogatories.
- The Commission initiated a proceeding in the district court, seeking an order to compel Wilson Certified Foods to answer the objected-to interrogatories.
- The district court overruled some objections, ordering those interrogatories to be answered, but sustained other objections without providing a reason.
- The Commission, as appellant, appealed the portion of the district court's order that sustained the objections to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Wilson Certified Foods, Inc. was the appellee.
- The Supreme Court initially dismissed the appeal but then vacated its dismissal order and reinstated the appeal to consider the merits of the case.
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 the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission's statutory power to require answers to written interrogatories extend to compelling an employer to compile lists and data from its records, rather than being limited to answering direct questions?
Opinions:
Majority - Lavender, Justice
No. The Commission's statutory power to use written interrogatories is limited to asking questions and does not extend to compelling an employer to prepare lists or furnish compiled information from its records, as that constitutes a request for production of documents, which is a separate and distinct procedure. The court reasoned that the statute, 25 O.S. § 1501(6), adopts the procedure for interrogatories from 12 O.S. § 549, which, as established in prior case law (Norman Plumb. Sup. Co.), is 'limited to the asking of questions.' The Commission cannot use its interrogatory power as a substitute for its power to inspect records or require the production of documents, which are governed by different statutes. Therefore, the district court correctly sustained objections to interrogatories that required Wilson Certified Foods to compile lists. However, the court erred in sustaining objections to interrogatories #45 and #46. These were proper questions, and they were 'directly and materially related to the complaint' filed by Bernice Byrd, which alleged both race and sex discrimination. The employer's objection that the information was not separately maintained is not a valid basis to refuse to answer; it may form the basis of an answer (e.g., 'the information is unavailable'), but it does not excuse the obligation to respond.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope and enforcement mechanisms of an administrative agency's investigatory powers in Oklahoma. It establishes a clear line between written interrogatories (asking questions) and the production of documents (requesting files or data compilations), preventing agencies from using the former as a shortcut for the latter. By requiring agencies to use the specific statutory tool for the information they seek, the ruling promotes procedural propriety. The case also solidifies the procedural path for enforcement, confirming that an agency must apply to a district court for an enforcement order under the Administrative Procedures Act, and that the district court's resulting order is final and appealable, providing certainty for both agencies and respondents.
