By Kristen Pryor and Cassie Alfheim
BLOG OVERVIEW: In EEOC v. Psychological Dimensions, LLC, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued administrative subpoenas to a third-party pre-employment assessment vendor, not the public employers under investigation, seeking pre-offer screening items that asked applicants about prior EEOC charges, discrimination complaints, and legal proceedings. On June 3, 2026, a federal court denied EEOC's subpoena enforcement action as outside the scope of the underlying complaint, which centered on a post-offer psychological interview and remains active.
On May 8, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a federal court action enforcing two administrative subpoenas related to an open investigation into the hiring practices within the Arapahoe County, Colorado Sheriff's Office (ACSO) and the Board of County Commissioners for Arapahoe County (BCCAC). According to EEOC, the investigation encompasses Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Notably, this subpoena enforcement action does not target the public employers directly, but rather an independent assessment vendor used by both departments: Psychological Dimensions, LLC.
EEOC and Administrative Subpoenas
To understand the significance of this investigative action, it helps to understand how EEOC operates. When a worker files a charge of discrimination, EEOC has broad statutory authority to investigate. Usually, information-gathering happens privately and voluntarily. However, when an employer (or a connected third-party, in this case) refuses to hand over data or information, EEOC can issue an administrative subpoena.
Unlike a court-ordered subpoena, an administrative subpoena is issued directly by the agency during its pre-lawsuit investigative phase. If the recipient ignores or denies the request, EEOC must file a federal "subpoena enforcement action." This step brings a normally confidential investigation into the public record, signaling that the agency views the requested information as central to its mission.
In this case, EEOC directed its investigation toward Psychological Dimensions as the vendor responsible for the assessment that led to the complaint being investigated. The EEOC complaint stemmed from the rescission of an offer after Psychological Dimensions did not pass the complainant in a post-offer psychological interview assessment. However, EEOC's subpoenas at issue here related to a pre-offer assessment, also administered by Psychological Dimensions, but not relevant to the complaint.
Public safety agencies have a responsibility to ensure candidates are fit for public trust duties. This is often accomplished via a combination of pre-employment assessments, polygraph examinations, physical ability testing, mental and physical medical screenings, and background investigations. The ADA governs when assessments that may yield information about disabilities may lawfully occur1, drawing a critical line between pre-offer screenings and post-offer evaluations, as follows:
According to its website, Psychological Dimensions offers pre-employment psychological evaluations to assess suitability for public safety and high-trust roles. The firm notes that its process "assesses bias, integrity, teamwork, stress tolerance, and adaptability" using "validated tools and structured clinical interviews" administered by specialized public safety psychologists.
In the subpoenas at issue, EEOC specifically sought to examine a subset of the pre-offer assessment items that asked applicants about their prior workplace harassment or discrimination complaints, past EEOC charges, or history in legal proceedings. Unlike general background questions, these items target protected activity; as such, screening on that basis constitutes potential retaliation regardless of how the tool is labeled or who administers it. Separately, with approximately 430 items on the pre-offer assessment and EEOC flagging only 4, it remains an open question whether additional items could independently qualify as a "medical examination" under the ADA.
Because the complaint was based on the post-offer psychological interview results and not the pre-offer assessment, the judge in this case denied EEOC's attempt to gather additional evidence on potential issues with the pre-offer assessment, citing the request as out of scope on June 3, 2026 (EEOC v. Psychological Dimensions, LLC). The underlying complaint regarding the post-offer psychological interview remains active; the ruling narrows the scope of EEOC's investigation but does not resolve it.
This dispute is a clear reminder that employers cannot treat vendor assessments as a compliance black box; they must review screening content for items that could run afoul of applicable employment laws (e.g., items that elicit protected information or, as in this case, may constitute retaliation) and ensure any psychological or medical evaluations occur only after a conditional job offer has been made. Here, EEOC's identification of problematic items within a pre-offer assessment—questions about prior EEOC charges, discrimination complaints, and legal proceedings—illustrates how vendor tools can embed legal risk that goes undetected when employers fail to review underlying assessment items or simply assume vendor compliance. Employers must also account for the placement of background investigations to comply with local regulations. Even if courts limit EEOC's reach in enforcing subpoenas outside the scope of the originating complaint, the core lesson remains the same: outsourcing the tool does not outsource the legal risk.
DCI will continue monitoring this case. If your organization uses pre-employment assessments and is interested in learning more about the likely defensibility of those tools, visit our AI Bias Audit page. For current DCI clients, contact your consultant directly.
1 https://www.eeoc.gov/foia/eeoc-informal-discussion-letter-67