In EEOC v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 771 F.3d 757 (11th Cir. 2014) (No. 13-13519), an employee of Royal Caribbean cruise line filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Royal Caribbean violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to renew his employment agreement after he was diagnosed with a medical condition. Royal Caribbean did not dispute that it refused to renew the employee’s contract because of his medical condition, but instead asserted that the ADA did not apply because the employee was a foreign national working on a foreign ship. The EEOC issued an administrative subpoena to Royal Caribbean, requesting information relating to other employees whose contracts were not renewed due to a medical reason. After Royal Caribbean refused to comply fully with the subpoena, the EEOC filed a motion to compel, which the district court denied. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The court of appeals noted that courts addressing the permissible scope of EEOC subpoenas generally have construed the term “relevant” liberally and afforded the EEOC access to virtually anything that might cast light on the allegations against the employer; however, the court also cautioned that courts should not construe the EEOC’s investigative authority so broadly that the relevancy requirement is rendered a nullity. Thus, the court rejected the EEOC’s argument that it was entitled to discovery of any information that might uncover other potential violations and victims of discrimination on the basis of disability. Rather, the court held that the standard by which the EEOC’s subpoena power should be governed is “relevant to the charge under investigation,” and not relevance to issues that may be contested if and when future charges are brought against others. Because there was no dispute that Royal Caribbean refused to renew the complaining employee’s contract for medical reasons, the issue of whether Royal Caribbean refused to renew other employees’ contracts for the same reason was irrelevant to the individual charge at hand.