Issue 32 — Judge Rules Penn Must Release Jewish Employee Information

On Tuesday, Judge Gerald Pappert of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that Penn must comply with the EEOC’s subpoena for personal contact information, including phone numbers, emails, and home mailing addresses, as it investigates potential antisemitic employment practices at Penn.

Penn has until May 1 to comply. The University said it plans to appeal, and several faculty, staff, and student groups who joined the case as interveners can continue litigation as well.

As it stands, the ruling forces Penn to hand over a list of employees the EEOC believes may be Jewish based on affiliations with specific campus organizations or academic departments in an effort to investigate potential antisemitism towards those same individuals.

The last three years of turmoil on campus—including leadership turnover, rising antisemitism, and ongoing debates about campus culture—have led to a fractured Jewish community at Penn. However, opposition to the EEOC’s subpoena has, notably, united the community.

Groups across campus, including Penn’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-Penn), Penn Hillel, and the Penn Jewish faculty group that filed an amicus brief in the case, have issued statements condemning the collection of such a list. No formal Jewish campus organizations have come out in favor of complying with the subpoena, although Pennsylvania’s non-Jewish senators did so following Judge Pappert’s ruling.

This level of alignment is striking for a community that has otherwise been deeply divided. It reflects shared concerns about privacy, trust, and the potential consequences of compiling sensitive information tied to religious identity. As Steven Weitzman, director of Penn’s Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, noted, “There have been cases in the past where information compiled by the government has been used to support discrimination against Jews.”

Penn said it intends to appeal, and based on community reactions so far, the Penn employee intervener groups appear likely to as well. Continuing the legal challenge alongside the interveners harnesses this rare moment of unity and reinforces Penn’s commitment to protecting the privacy of its community—an essential foundation for academic freedom and academic excellence. These conditions enable faculty, staff, and students to freely associate, debate, and engage on campus.

As we’ve discussed, in December 2023, EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas launched an investigation into suspected antisemitic employment practices at Penn. While Penn has cooperated broadly, it has consistently resisted providing identifying information for employees who may be Jewish.

In November 2025, the EEOC filed a subpoena enforcement action after Penn refused to produce a list of individuals connected to Jewish organizations or programs. A five-month legal dispute followed, culminating in this week's ruling.

In his ruling, Judge Pappert emphasized that the court’s role is limited and the decision is procedural. It does not determine whether antisemitic employment practices occurred, but instead whether the EEOC is within its authority to request information relevant to its investigation. He concluded that it is. Courts have historically given the EEOC broad discretion at this stage, and he did not find Penn’s statutory or constitutional arguments persuasive enough to bar the request.

Judge Pappert’s primary concession was narrow. When providing employee information, Penn does not need to specify which Jewish organizations individuals are affiliated with, reducing the risk of exposing specific beliefs. Penn also does not need to release information for employees associated with Penn Hillel, Chabad at Penn, or MEOR, which are independent organizations external to the university.

Throughout the case, interveners expressed concern that collecting such information could be misused or weaponized. Judge Pappert rejected these concerns, calling any “allegations” that the current efforts by the EEOC can be compared to historical efforts to compile lists of Jews during the Holocaust “unfortunate and inappropriate.” He argued such claims misunderstand the court’s role and the EEOC’s authority.

Penn and the interveners can appeal the subpoena enforcement order, first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and potentially to the Supreme Court. However, there is no guarantee of success. Precedent largely supports the EEOC’s broad investigatory authority, and an appeal would not automatically pause compliance. To delay enforcement, a stay would need to be granted while litigation continues.

This case also raises broader questions about how far the federal government can go in seeking information tied to identity. As lawyer and Wharton professor Amanda Shanor noted, “Whether the government has the power to demand lists like this should be important to every American, no matter their faith or political ideology.”

At Penn, the EEOC has already begun contacting some Jewish Studies professors on their personal phones. However, the underlying concern extends beyond a single campus. The precedent could have implications for how investigations involving other minority groups are conducted, particularly when sensitive personal or associational information is involved.

The EEOC argues that this data collection is routine for any civil rights investigation. However, when the group whose interests are aimed to be protected uniformly agree that aspects of the investigation pose more harm than benefit, alternative routes should be explored.

To continue restoring trust in the university’s leadership, Penn should protect the privacy and constitutional rights of its community by continuing the legal challenge. Doing so signals that the university defends core rights of free speech, religion, and assembly in pursuit of academic freedom and helps to enable a campus environment where faculty, staff, and students can learn freely. 

Moments of broad agreement at Penn are rare these days, and in this case, a fractured Jewish community has come together around shared concerns about privacy and institutional responsibility. By appealing, Penn stands with that unified community, rebuilding trust while reinforcing the conditions that allow academic excellence to flourish.

Curated highlights from this week’s Penn news

Thank you for reading the Franklin’s Forum newsletter! We love connecting with our readers — send us your thoughts and questions, Penn news, and ideas for future issues. If you enjoyed this edition, please spread the word by forwarding it to friends and classmates.