ALJ requires OFCCP to be more transparent
Oracle won their motion to compel the OFCCP to respond to 86 requests for production and 25 interrogatories. According to Constangy, Brooks,Smith & Prophete LLP, “while reading the decision, it is easy to see why Oracle filed a motion to compel. The OFCCP’s responses clearly illustrate the agency’s lack of transparency in the administrative enforcement action that it is pursuing.” Most of Oracle’s requests sought the evidentiary support underlying the OFCCP’s allegations. OFCCP responded to Oracle’s requests with no substantive information and objected based on privilege, relevance, overbreadth, undue burden, and vagueness.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) universally overruled the OFCCP’s privilege objections, explained that “none of these privileges or doctrines shield from disclosure any facts or conclusions upon which [the OFCCP] relied to make, or which support, the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint.” The ALJ also said that Oracle “may fairly inquire as to the factual basis of this allegation, including seeking supporting documents.”
OFCCP refused to identify individuals alleged to be impacted by Oracle’s policies and procedures and argued that the word “identify” was vague and ambiguous. This argument fell short on the ALJ who said “[The OFCCP] surely knows what it means to ‘identify’ a person,’ and ordered OFCCP to respond. However, OFCCP tried to provide this information by referring to a database but the ALJ said that the database must be obvious to a third party trying to find names and job titles of the individuals at issue. This decision is a victory for all government contractors trying to gain transparency from the OFCCP.