ged that the EEOC could have amended the charge to make nationwide allegations, but it didn't. In the future, the EEOC might simply amend the charge.Finally, although the Eleventh Circuit's opinion does not really limit the EEOC's subpoena power — it simply says the subpoena has to relate to the charge under investigation — the EEOC may feel differently. Going forward, the commission might issue more subpoenas to establish its authority.If this is a trend, employers should get ahead of it. Review attendance policies and make sure that protected absences are not getting lost in the shuffle, and that leave as a reasonable accommodation is considered. If the policy is clear, make sure management is administering it appropriately.Republished with permission. This article, "Attendance Policies, ADA May Be In EEOC's Crosshairs," was published by Law360 on June 13, 2023.[1] 11th Cir. Opinion, p. 2 of 30, Fn. 2.[2] 11th Circuit Opinion, p. 6 of 30.[3] 11th Circuit Opinion, p. 13 of 30, citing 29 U.S.C. §161(1).[4] 11th Circuit Opinion, p. 8 of 30.[5] 11th Circuit Opinion, p. 9 of 30.[6] 11th Circuit Opinion, p. 16 of 30, Fn. 8.[7] 11th Circuit Opinion, p. 18-19 of 30.[8] 11th Circuit Opinion, p. 21 of 30.[9] https://www.eeoc.gov/commissioner-charges-and-directed-investigations.

Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Champagne Drywall, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 179 (D. Mass. 2007) Under the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board moved for an order from the court to enforce two subpoenas duces tecum served on Champagne Drywall as part of the NLRB’s investigation of Champagne’s alleged practice of refusing to consider and hire qualified job applicants based on their union affiliation. Champagne objected because even though the data sought existed within the organization, Champagne did not possess the information in the format sought by the NLRB – namely, as a list.The court found that the NLRB was entitled to ask for information to be presented in a list format pursuant to its subpoena power under 29 U.S.C. § 161(1) and ordered Champagne to comply with the subpoena. As grounds for its decision, the court cited a Fourth Circuit decision recognizing the government’s broad subpoena power, E.E.O.C. v. Maryland Cup Corp., 785 F.2d 471, 479 (4th Cir. 1986).