See Point IV, infra. Case 1:16-cv-00842-LJV Document 8-2 Filed 01/31/17 Page 13 of 21 14 the Complaint fails to state a plausible claim of gender discrimination with respect to this single example provided and/or with respect to an alleged class of female applicants. Cf. EEOC v. Pioneer Hotel, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-01588, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98350, *7 (D. Nev. July 15, 2013) (noting that “an action pursuant to Section 706 without a single identified plaintiff will not lie,” but denying motion to dismiss because the complaint contained many specific allegations ). C. Record-Keeping Allegations The EEOC also claims in conclusory fashion that Upstate Niagara failed to make and preserve records in violation of Section 709(c) of Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c)). Complaint, ¶ 15 (“Records which Defendant unlawfully failed to retain include, but are not limited to, employment applications, complete applicant logs, interview documentation, and other hiring- related documentation.”).

¶ 21. The statutory joint federal-state enforcement scheme, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(b), as effected by the Worksharing Agreement, is meant to “provide individuals with an efficient procedure for obtaining redress for their grievances.” Def.

14. See, e.g., EEOC v. LA Weight Loss, 509 F. Supp. 2d 527, 537-538 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2007) (holding defendant breached duty under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c) and 29 C.F.R. §1602.14 to preserve employment records relevant to underlying retaliation claim and awarding partial summary judgment to EEOC).

This is particularly so because EEOC, unlike private parties, is “granted broad administrative authority to conduct extensive pre-litigation discovery precisely so that it can ably determine how the agency’s resources can best be utilized to fight the scourge of unlawful Case 1:07-cv-08383-LAP Document 599 Filed 12/24/14 Page 16 of 25 12 discrimination.” EEOC v. E.J. Sacco, Inc., 102 F. Supp. 2d 413, 419 (E.D. Mich. 2000); see 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-8, 2000e-9 (2013) (EEOC investigative authority); EEOC v. United Parcel Serv., 587 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2009) (describing EEOC’s very broad pre-suit subpoena power). Moreover, unlike private litigants, EEOC has two in-house services that enable it to analyze data—(i) the Office of Research, Information, and Planning and (ii) Research and Analytic Services.8 EEOC could have used either of these services to determine whether any pattern or practice of pay cuts or demotions occurred.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that they seek to disclose charges that were never disclosed by the individuals who made them. Plaintiffs cite Babbitt v. Albertson’s, Inc., No. 92 Civ. 1883, 1992 WL 605652, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. 1992), for the proposition that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(e) only prevents the EEOC itself from disclosing the contents of EEOC charges and does not apply to private litigation. That misses the point.

Sch. Dist., No. 07 Civ. 0892, 2008 WL 5120494, at *2 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14; Byrnie, 243 F.3d at 109 (citing Favors v. Fisher, 13 F.3d 1235, 1239 (8th Cir. 1994); Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1419 (lOth Cir.

The information EEOC seeks in its subpoena meets the broad standards for relevancy applicable during an EEOC investigation. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8. The Supreme Court has stated that, “[s]ince the enactment of Title VII, courts have generously construed the term ‘relevant’ and have afforded the Commission access to virtually any material that might cast light on the allegations against the employer.”

Furthermore, any disclosure would result in criminal sanctions of “not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(e); see also C.F.R. § 1601.22 (2007).

Any officer or employee of the Commission who shall make public in any manner whatever any information in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $ 1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year.” 42 USC § 2000e-8. This information is barred from disclosure by statute.

See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(a). “Congress entrusted the Commission with significant enforcement responsibilities in respect to Title VII.” Astra, 94 F.3d at 744.