The EEOC sought to enter defendant\u2019s property without an administrative warrant to investigate a hiring discrimination claim. An administrative warrant is not required if there are built-in safeguards for the employer to protect against arbitrariness and provide reasonableness. EEOC v. Nucor Steel Gallatin, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56406 (E.D. Ky. April 28, 2016):
\n<\/p>\n
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission seeks a declaration that it may enter the private commercial property of Defendant Nucor Steel Gallatin, Inc., without Gallatin’s consent and without an administrative warrant, to investigate a hiring discrimination claim. The parties apparently agree that, to date, no federal court has fully explored the authority of the Commission to conduct a warrantless, nonconsensual search of private commercial property. The Court now finds that, although the Commission must obtain pre-compliance judicial review before performing nonconsensual inspections of private commercial property, this approval need not always come in the form of an administrative warrant. Instead, the court’s review process must provide a nonconsenting owner with safeguards roughly equivalent to those afforded under a traditional warrant procedure. Here, the Court’s thorough review of the Commission’s request lends all the protections a formal warrant procedure would otherwise provide. The Court will therefore enforce the Commission’s subpoena, subject to the conditions carefully laid out below.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The EEOC sought to enter defendant\u2019s property without an administrative warrant to investigate a hiring discrimination claim. An administrative warrant is not required if there are built-in safeguards for the employer to protect against arbitrariness and provide reasonableness. EEOC v. … Continue reading