900 Pages, 1 Ruling, and a Dismissal: EEOC Ends Penn Subpoena Fight

For legal and compliance practitioners, this case crystallizes the friction between the EEOC’s broad statutory authority to investigate discrimination and Fourth Amendment-adjacent privacy interests that emerge when the government demands faith-based employee directories. The agency’s strategic withdrawal, after a court ordered compliance with modifications, signals both the potency of institutional pushback and the unresolved constitutional boundaries that could resurface in future subpoena battles.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has voluntarily dismissed its subpoena enforcement action against the University of Pennsylvania, ending a high-profile legal fight that pitted the agency’s statutory mandate to investigate religious discrimination against fundamental employee privacy rights. The dispute, rooted in a 2023 commissioner’s charge filed by Andrea Lucas, escalated in November 2025 when the EEOC sought a court order to compel Penn to identify “witnesses to and victims of the religious-based harassment” and provide their contact information. Penn resisted, arguing it had already turned over nearly 900 pages of documents but drew the line at compiling de-anonymized lists of employees by Jewish faith, association with Jewish organizations, participation in Jewish programming, and responses to antisemitism surveys—information it deemed invasive and reminiscent of historic governmental persecution lists.

“

The EEOC’s statutory duty to investigate charges of harassment on the basis of religion (Title VII) is clear, yet the agency’s demand for lists that effectively categorized employees by religion raised constitutional and policy red flags.

The legal battle reached a turning point on March 31, 2026, when Pennsylvania District Judge Gerald Pappert ruled that Penn had to comply with the subpoena, albeit without disclosing any employee’s affiliation with specific organizations. Judge Pappert, while siding with the EEOC on its broad authority to investigate, rebuked Penn’s comparison of the agency’s request to Nazi-era lists as “unfortunate and inappropriate.” Yet barely a month later, the EEOC itself asked the court to drop the enforcement action, and the judge granted the voluntary dismissal. The abrupt retreat suggests a reassessment of the agency’s strategy—perhaps in light of the practical challenges of handling sensitive religious data, potential political shifts at the commission, or a recognition that continued litigation could undermine its broader anti-discrimination mission. Indeed, the filing itself was described as marking “a simmering down of tensions,” hinting at behind-the-scenes recalibration.