Federal Judge Orders Penn to Comply with EEOC Subpoena in Antisemitism Probe

On [date of decision], Judge Gerald Pappert of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a ruling in EEOC v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa., granting the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the authority to enforce an administrative subpoena against the University of Pennsylvania (Penn).

The subpoena seeks contact information for Penn employees who may have been victims of or witnesses to antisemitic harassment on campus, following public statements by then-President Elizabeth Magill and others in October 2023. These statements described widespread antisemitic incidents targeting Jewish faculty, employees, and students at Penn in the aftermath of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel.

Penn initially refused to comply with the EEOC’s subpoena, prompting the agency to seek judicial enforcement. The court ordered Penn to comply with most of the subpoena’s requests by May 1, 2024. Penn, along with intervenors, subsequently filed motions to stay the enforcement order pending appeal.

Court Rejects Penn’s Stay Request

The court denied Penn’s request for a stay, concluding that while Penn demonstrated potential irreparable harm, the EEOC would not be substantially injured by granting the subpoena. Additionally, the public interest favors allowing the EEOC’s investigation to proceed without delay. The ruling addressed four key factors in evaluating stay requests:

• Likelihood of success on the merits: The court found Penn has a weak chance of prevailing on appeal, as the EEOC’s subpoena is legally valid and relevant to its discrimination charge.
• Irreparable injury to Penn: While Penn argued it faced irreparable harm, the court determined this did not outweigh the EEOC’s interests.
• Substantial injury to the EEOC: The court ruled that a stay would not substantially harm the EEOC’s investigation.
• Public interest: The court emphasized the public’s interest in addressing allegations of systemic religious discrimination at a major university.

In its memorandum opinion, the court dismissed Penn’s arguments that the subpoena was overly broad or unprecedented. The court noted that while investigations into systemic religious discrimination at universities may be rare, the EEOC’s subpoena is narrowly tailored to seek contact information for employees affiliated with Penn’s Jewish community—those most likely to possess relevant information about potential hostile work environments based on religion.

Penn’s Legal Arguments Fall Short

Penn contended that the EEOC’s subpoena was "so novel" that it could not be enforced, citing a lack of precedent for subpoenas requiring employers to identify employees of a specific religion. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the EEOC’s request is directly tied to its investigation of President Magill’s public statements about antisemitic harassment at Penn. The subpoena is designed to gather evidence related to whether Penn subjected Jewish employees to a hostile work environment based on religion.

The court also dismissed Penn’s claims that the subpoena violated substantive due process or the First Amendment, affirming that the EEOC’s actions were legally justified and proportionate.