Reported / Citable
Background
Jarrell Wilson sued Atkore International, Inc. for employment discrimination after Atkore did not select him for a welder position. Atkore told Wilson that he lacked experience with 100% argon gas welding.
Wilson moved to quash five subpoenas issued to former employers, a former employer after the events at issue, his welding-certification program, and another former welding employer. He argued that the requests were irrelevant and unduly intrusive.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Keith P. Ellison denied Wilson’s motion to quash and for a protective order. Records concerning discrimination or retaliation complaints Wilson made against former employers were relevant to credibility, state of mind, and damages, although the court did not decide whether they would be admissible at trial.
The court also found relevant the records concerning Wilson’s application materials, compensation, benefits, termination, welding training, and work history. His qualifications and experience with 100% argon gas welding were pertinent to both his discrimination claim and Atkore’s stated reason for not hiring him. Wilson did not make the particularized factual showing required to establish good cause for protection from the subpoenas.
Key Takeaways
- An employment-discrimination plaintiff’s qualifications may be discoverable when the employer relies on a qualification-based hiring reason.
- Prior discrimination or retaliation complaints may be discoverable as to credibility, state of mind, and damages.
- Conclusory assertions of intrusiveness do not establish good cause for a Rule 26(c) protective order.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the broad scope of discovery in employment-discrimination cases where an employer asserts that an applicant lacked a desired skill. Even where a skill was not listed as a formal job requirement, evidence concerning that skill may be discoverable if the employer identifies it as the reason for its hiring decision.
The decision also underscores that a party seeking to block otherwise relevant third-party discovery must identify specific facts showing undue burden, oppression, or another concrete harm.