The EEOC first requested information in July as part of its investigation into claims of antisemitism at the university. Penn refused to comply.
Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
A Pennsylvania district court judge ordered Tuesday that the University of Pennsylvania must comply with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s subpoena to produce the names and contact information of employees who are members of Jewish groups or organizations, a request that critics of the Trump administration have likened to Nazi Germany’s efforts to identify and document Jewish individuals.
In his memorandum, Judge Gerald Pappert, an Obama appointee, outlined one caveat: Penn is not required to identify the employees’ affiliations with a specific organization. In other words, while the names and information of employees in Jewish organizations must be turned over, Penn officials do not need to specify which organization they belong to—a stipulation the EEOC had agreed to previously, the judge noted.
The EEOC first requested this information in July as part of its investigation into claims of antisemitism at the university, arguing that it would help the commission identify potential victims. Penn refused to comply; in a Jan. 20 legal filing, the university called the request an “extraordinary and unconstitutional demand.” The American Association of University Professors joined the suit on Penn’s side.
“To demand that Penn create and compile lists of Jewish people—particularly those active in political causes disfavored by the government—evokes the disturbing history of twentieth-century antisemitism,” the AAUP wrote in a news release. “Beyond Penn itself, this lawsuit has serious implications for the religious liberties of AAUP members nationwide, as well as their right to engage in speech and scholarship without the threat of ideological conformity. The government does not have the right to demand the private, personal information of religious minorities.”
Pappert slammed the defense’s comparisons to Nazi Germany in Tuesday’s memorandum.
“Penn and other groups and associations the Court permitted to intervene significantly raised the dispute’s temperature by impliedly and even expressly comparing the EEOC’s efforts to protect Jewish employees from antisemitism to the Holocaust and the Nazis’ compilation of ‘lists of Jews.’ Such allegations are unfortunate and inappropriate,” Pappert wrote. “They also obfuscate the Court’s limited role and the discrete legal issues before it.”
The judge rejected all of Penn’s arguments. Home addresses, phone numbers and participation in campus groups do not rise to the level of “highly personal” information protected by the Constitution, he wrote. Also, just because a subpoena refers to religion does not mean the subpoena classifies based on religion.
Throughout the case, representatives for the EEOC maintained that its request fell well within its rights to investigate the university and, during an oral argument, said the commission “doesn’t care who belongs to what association.”
Spokespeople for the EEOC and Penn did not return Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment prior to publication.
This is a developing story and will be updated as new information emerges.
