Reposted by @laighe.bsky.social
laighe.bsky.social
@laighe.bsky.social
3.1K followers 2.7K following 638 posts
Retired librarian. Blue dot in the red state of Texas. I enjoy reading old plays, especially those from the 1950s. 🇺🇲🇺🇦🌻
Retired librarian. Blue dot in the red state of Texas. I enjoy reading old plays, especially those from the 1950s. 🇺🇲🇺🇦🌻
![The irreparable-harm factor in this high-profile administrative subpoena
enforcement action tilts in Penn’s favor, albeit barely. Irreparable harm is “harm that
cannot be prevented or fully rectified by a successful appeal.” In re Revel AC, Inc., 802
F.3d at 568 (citation omitted). Penn asserts a successful appeal would not prevent or
fully rectify its disclosure of the affected employees’ information to the EEOC. The
EEOC responds that if respondents prevail on appeal, the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals can order the EEOC to destroy the information Penn turned over. But that
would not prevent or fully rectify the initial disclosure of the information to the EEOC.
3
The EEOC fails to show that it would be substantially injured by a stay pending
appeal. Substantial injury requires real, not speculative, harm. Id. at 572. The EEOC
argues a stay would interfere with its ability to investigate Penn, emphasizing
“memories fade, witnesses and victims [may] leave [Penn], and potential harassing
behavior [may] persist[].” (EEOC’s Resp. in Opp’n at 15, Dkt. No. 62.) But about five
months after Commissioner Lucas issued the charge in December of 2023, the EEOC
went dark for nearly one year. (Tr. of Oral Arg. at 19–20.) Though the EEOC
represented this sort of investigatory delay is not “unusual,” (Id. at 20:16), it
undermines its asserted injury. The EEOC’s articulated harms—memories fade,
witnesses and victims may leave Penn and potential harassment may persist—are also](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:wovz3whdkughp6decczypkqq/bafkreihkhjqwwtcevqliymviokhseeualbeozfexwb5wbeqdtcnlvp3eaa)
