In a recent case, In re AAM Holding Corp., 2025 WL 2433651 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2025), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit weighed in on an important aspect of federal anti-discrimination law, namely, the authority of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to continue its investigation – here, its quest for pedigree information for employees at locations relevant to a charge of widespread sexual harassment – after it issues a right-to-sue letter.
From the decision:
The EEOC’s broad public interest and role in combating employment discrimination supports our view that its authority to investigate a charge extends beyond the issuance of a right-to-sue letter. See EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 291–92, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002) (recognizing that it is the “agency’s province … to determine whether public resources should be committed” to any particular investigation or enforcement action). A central component of the EEOC’s role is to pursue the public’s interest in enforcing employment discrimination laws even where that interest is distinct from, and may exceed, the private interest of the aggrieved charging party. See Occidental Life Ins., 432 U.S. at 368, 97 S.Ct. 2447 (“[T]he EEOC does not function simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of private parties.”); Gen. Tel., 446 U.S. at 326, 100 S.Ct. 1698 (explaining that EEOC enforcement “was intended to supplement, not replace, the private action”); Waffle House, 534 U.S. at 287, 122 S.Ct. 754 (emphasizing “the difference between the EEOC’s enforcement role and an individual employee’s private cause of action”). Congress reinforced the agency’s mandate “to secure more effective enforcement of Title VII” by arming it with the tools necessary to do so: investigation, conciliation, mediation, civil enforcement, and intervention in charging parties’ civil actions. Gen. Tel., 446 U.S. at 325, 100 S.Ct. 1698.
Were the EEOC to issue a right-to-sue letter to the charging party, only to have that party decline to sue (or sue and then settle for nominal damages), the agency would be free to continue investigating any ongoing unlawful discrimination that could be remedied by conciliation or public litigation, including avenues uniquely available to the EEOC based on its distinct authority to promote the public interest. See Waffle House, 534 U.S. at 291, 122 S.Ct. 754 (“The statute clearly makes the EEOC the master of its own case and confers on the agency the authority to evaluate the strength of the public interest at stake.”). Indeed, it bears noting that the EEOC can initiate class-wide enforcement actions without certification as a class representative under Federal Rule of Procedure 23, and it can pursue injunctive relief in addition to the specific relief available to the charging party. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(a)(1), (d)(1)(A); Gen. Tel., 446 U.S. at 332–34, 100 S.Ct. 1698.
Of course, the EEOC’s investigative authority “is tied to [the] charges filed with” it. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. at 64, 104 S.Ct. 1621. “[B]ut once a charge is filed … the EEOC is in command of the process.” Waffle House, 534 U.S. at 291, 122 S.Ct. 754. “The statute clearly makes the EEOC the master of its own case and confers on the agency the authority to evaluate the strength of the public interest at stake.” Id. When the EEOC determines that “public resources should be committed” to investigating and enforcing a charge, “the statutory text unambiguously authorizes it to proceed.”
Based on this, the court held that the EEOC retains its authority to investigate, including by issuing and enforcing administrative subpoenas, after it issues a right-to-sue letter and the charging party has filed a civil lawsuit.