The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has the authority to enter a business for an on-site inspection without either a warrant or the property owner's consent, says a federal court.

The ruling by the U.S. District Court in Frankfort, Kentucky, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nucor Steel Gallatin Inc. says it is the first to fully explore the EEOC's authority to conduct a “warrantless, nonconsensual” search of private commercial property. The ruling was issued April 28 but was publicized this week.

An expert said the ruling gives the agency a “significant weapon” to wield against employers.

According to the lawsuit, in October 2014, Edward Bennett filed a charge with the EEOC accusing Ghent, Kentucky-based Nucor Steel Gallatin Inc. of unlawfully rescinding a job offer after discovering his record of disability.

In March 2015, the EEOC's investigator requested an on-site visit, which Gallatin refused. The agency then issued a subpoena requiring Gallatin to permit on-site access. Gallatin responded in May 2015 by filing a petition with the EEOC to revoke or modify the subpoena, and subsequently informed the agency it would not consent to a visit without a warrant. The EEOC then asked the court to intervene the matter.

In ruling in the agency's favor, the court held the EEOC's regulatory scheme “provides comprehensive procedural safeguards for a company that refuses to obey a subpoena.”

“The EEOC cannot enforce a subpoena without obtaining approval from a federal district court. The court, in turn will enforce the subpoena only after determining that the inspection is within the Commission's authority, procedurally sound, relevant to the specific charges filed, and not unduly burdensome.

“These requirements … closely track the inquiry made under a traditional warrant procedure,” said the court.

“Gallatin asks the Court to duplicate the efforts of the federal court system by embracing the fiction that the very inquiry contained in this order, in the absence of a formal judicial warrant, is somehow insufficient to provide the company with the safeguards required under the Fourth Amendment,” which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. “The court will not accept that invitation,” said the ruling in holding Gallatin must submit to an onsite investigation.

Lisa Guerra Perrien, an attorney with Alianz, Schrader, Linker, Farris Mayes, L.L.P. in Houston, said no decision has been as of yet as to whether to appeal.

The ruling “adds a significant weapon to the EEOC's tool box to conduct pretty intrusive investigations before ever having to file a lawsuit,” said Gerald L. Maatman Jr., a partner at Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in Chicago.

“It's one thing to have to send documents. It's another to have to open the fount and to allow an EEOC investigator to rummage around and conduct searches of private property,” said Mr. Maatman, who added he anticipates the EEOC will be citing this case in legal filings around the country when an employer tries to challenge it on this issue.