{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:85f6be", "proof": "sha256:5b96701a6493c0d053fd981edc5d5f9276b6e78f536954c9f2d293f9e4cc7627", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "In the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "For the Seventh Circuit", "paragraphs": [ "para_4" ] }, { "title": "No. 13-2901", "paragraphs": [ "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11" ] }, { "title": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14", "para_15" ] }, { "title": "ARGUED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 — DECIDED JANUARY 12, 2015", "paragraphs": [ "para_17", "para_18" ] }, { "title": "WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Celia Greengrass sued her for-", "paragraphs": [ "para_20", "para_21", "para_22" ] }, { "title": "(“EEOC”) against the company by naming her in its annual", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SEC filings and casting her complaint as “meritless.” The", "paragraphs": [ "para_25", "para_26" ] }, { "title": "2 No. 13-2901", "paragraphs": [ "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35" ] }, { "title": "I. BACKGROUND", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Celia Greengrass began working as an account executive", "paragraphs": [ "para_38", "para_39" ] }, { "title": "Kevin Anderson, IMS’s Las Vegas General Manager. Two", "paragraphs": [ "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47" ] }, { "title": "As a publicly traded company, IMS is subject to the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SEC’s annual filing requirements. In particular, item 103 of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SEC Regulation S-K requires companies to describe any ma-", "paragraphs": [ "para_51", "para_52" ] }, { "title": "C.F.R. § 229.103 (1982). In March 2008, IMS’s Treasurer and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "CFO, Danny Weibling, consulted with an outside account-", "paragraphs": [ "para_55", "para_56", "para_57" ] }, { "title": "Greengrass’s complaint in its 2008 disclosures. It did, how-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 13-2901 3", "paragraphs": [ "para_60" ] }, { "title": "EEOC complaint brought against the company. IMS’s 10-Q", "paragraphs": [ "para_62", "para_63", "para_64" ] }, { "title": "IMS was engaged in litigation, but did not mention the", "paragraphs": [ "para_66", "para_67" ] }, { "title": "At some point in July 2008, IMS received correspondence", "paragraphs": [ "para_69", "para_70", "para_71" ] }, { "title": "2008, IMS’s general counsel, Martin Sklapsky, sent an email", "paragraphs": [ "para_73" ] }, { "title": "Strabley, and President/CEO Donald Mardak) regarding", "paragraphs": [ "para_75", "para_76" ] }, { "title": "Greengrass complaint. At this point, they're", "paragraphs": [ "para_78" ] }, { "title": "One of the items they’re asking about is any", "paragraphs": [ "para_80", "para_81" ] }, { "title": "Obviously, the John Lounsbury complaint will", "paragraphs": [ "para_83", "para_84", "para_85" ] }, { "title": "She brought it to our attention, we addressed it", "paragraphs": [ "para_87", "para_88", "para_89" ] }, { "title": "Paul W and then the behavior she was com-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "4 No. 13-2901", "paragraphs": [ "para_92", "para_93", "para_94" ] }, { "title": "They’re asking about other complaints because", "paragraphs": [ "para_96" ] }, { "title": "IMS. Their logic would be that if we have mul-", "paragraphs": [ "para_98", "para_99" ] }, { "title": "Our problem is that we don’t know if Celia", "paragraphs": [ "para_101", "para_102" ] }, { "title": "EEOC appears to just be a form letter and the", "paragraphs": [ "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107" ] }, { "title": "If we do not mention it and Celia already re-", "paragraphs": [ "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119" ] }, { "title": "IMS is probably not going to get a large dam-", "paragraphs": [ "para_121", "para_122" ] }, { "title": "No. 13-2901 5", "paragraphs": [ "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127" ] }, { "title": "This all may not matter anyway. One of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_129", "para_130", "para_131" ] }, { "title": "Vegas office. If they want a list of every em-", "paragraphs": [ "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137" ] }, { "title": "Around January 12, 2009, IMS received notice that the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "EEOC wanted to conduct interviews regarding Greengrass’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_140", "para_141" ] }, { "title": "For its next SEC filing, dated April 6, 2009, IMS chose to", "paragraphs": [ "para_143" ] }, { "title": "The “Legal Proceedings” section of its annual 10-K filing", "paragraphs": [ "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152" ] }, { "title": "Amendment No. 1 Annual Report and in a quarterly disclo-", "paragraphs": [ "para_154" ] }, { "title": "6 No. 13-2901", "paragraphs": [ "para_156", "para_157" ] }, { "title": "On September 3, 2009, the EEOC found reasonable cause", "paragraphs": [ "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163" ] }, { "title": "Around December 24, 2009, the parties resolved Green-", "paragraphs": [ "para_165", "para_166" ] }, { "title": "IMS reported the resolution of its dispute with Green-", "paragraphs": [ "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174" ] }, { "title": "After leaving IMS, Greengrass struggled to find and", "paragraphs": [ "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181" ] }, { "title": "On September 28, 2010, Greengrass filed a second EEOC", "paragraphs": [ "para_183", "para_184" ] }, { "title": "March 25, 2011, the EEOC found “reasonable cause” to be-", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "No. 13-2901 7", "paragraphs": [ "para_187", "para_188" ] }, { "title": "Discrimination on a public record to preclude her from ob-", "paragraphs": [ "para_190", "para_191", "para_192" ] }, { "title": "Greengrass sued IMS alleging retaliation under Title VII", "paragraphs": [ "para_194" ] }, { "title": "2000e, et seq. After discovery closed, both Greengrass and", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "IMS moved for summary judgment. The district court grant-", "paragraphs": [ "para_197", "para_198" ] }, { "title": "II. ANALYSIS", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Greengrass challenges the district court’s conclusion that", "paragraphs": [ "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206" ] }, { "title": "679, 686 (7th Cir. 2005). “Summary judgment is appropriate", "paragraphs": [ "para_208", "para_209" ] }, { "title": "Gross v. PPG Indus., Inc., 636 F.3d 884, 888 (7th Cir. 2011) (in-", "paragraphs": [ "para_211" ] }, { "title": "A Title VII plaintiff can prove retaliation using either the", "paragraphs": [ "para_213" ] }, { "title": "527, 537 (7th Cir. 2013). Under the direct method, which", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Greengrass relies upon, a plaintiff must prove (1) that she", "paragraphs": [ "para_216" ] }, { "title": "8 No. 13-2901", "paragraphs": [ "para_218", "para_219", "para_220" ] }, { "title": "There is no dispute that Greengrass satisfied the first el-", "paragraphs": [ "para_222", "para_223" ] }, { "title": "Educ. of City of Chicago, 637 F.3d 729, 740 (7th Cir. 2011). We", "paragraphs": [ "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235" ] }, { "title": "Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006); see also Veprinsky v. Fluor", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Daniel, Inc., 87 F.3d 881, 888-91 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that", "paragraphs": [ "para_238", "para_239", "para_240" ] }, { "title": "We now turn to the causation requirement, which the", "paragraphs": [ "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246" ] }, { "title": "F.3d 887, 892 (7th Cir. 1999). Direct evidence typically re-", "paragraphs": [ "para_248" ] }, { "title": "No. 13-2901 9", "paragraphs": [ "para_250" ] }, { "title": "757, 764 (7th Cir. 2008). But a plaintiff may also supply the", "paragraphs": [ "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258" ] }, { "title": "835, 860 (7th Cir. 2012). When the plaintiff has “assemble[d]", "paragraphs": [ "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264" ] }, { "title": "Greengrass has assembled a convincing array of circum-", "paragraphs": [ "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269" ] }, { "title": "(7th Cir. 2012). IMS argues that it did not begin listing names", "paragraphs": [ "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275" ] }, { "title": "2009, when the agency informed IMS it would be taking in-", "paragraphs": [ "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281" ] }, { "title": "10 No. 13-2901", "paragraphs": [ "para_283", "para_284" ] }, { "title": "EEOC was taking the charge seriously, and that the retalia-", "paragraphs": [ "para_286" ] }, { "title": "2009. See Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., 636 F.3d 312, 315 (7th", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Cir. 2011) (noting whether amount of time lapsed is suspi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_289" ] }, { "title": "Greengrass presented evidence of animus as well. A rea-", "paragraphs": [ "para_291" ] }, { "title": "2008 email as evincing disdain for the EEOC process and an-", "paragraphs": [ "para_293", "para_294" ] }, { "title": "Greengrass’s complaint to her alleged harasser with the", "paragraphs": [ "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300" ] }, { "title": "703 F.3d 966, 974 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting whether ambiguous", "paragraphs": [ "para_302", "para_303" ] }, { "title": "Greengrass also provided evidence of pretext. Pretext can", "paragraphs": [ "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308" ] }, { "title": "Coleman, 667 F.3d at 852-53 (citations omitted). IMS main-", "paragraphs": [ "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313" ] }, { "title": "No. 13-2901 11", "paragraphs": [ "para_315", "para_316" ] }, { "title": "IMS’s SEC filings.” However, IMS’s multiple shifts in poli-", "paragraphs": [ "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338" ] }, { "title": "III. CONCLUSION", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the", "paragraphs": [ "para_341", "para_342" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "In the", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "United States Court of Appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "For the Seventh Circuit", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "No. 13-2901", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "CELIA GREENGRASS,", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "Plaintiff-Appellant,", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "INTERNATIONAL MONETARY SYSTEMS LTD.,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Defendant-Appellee.", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Appeal from the United States District Court for the", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "Eastern District of Wisconsin.", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "No. 2:12-cv-00212—Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "ARGUED SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 — DECIDED JANUARY 12, 2015", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "____________________", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "Before BAUER, ROVNER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge. Celia Greengrass sued her for-", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "mer employer, International Monetary Systems Ltd. (“IMS”),", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "alleging that IMS retaliated against her for filing a complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "(“EEOC”) against the company by naming her in its annual", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "SEC filings and casting her complaint as “meritless.” The", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "district court granted summary judgment in favor of IMS on", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "the ground that Greengrass lacked evidence showing a", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "2 No. 13-2901", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "causal link between her EEOC filing and the alleged retalia-", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "tory act. We reverse. Greengrass made out a prima facie case", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "of retaliation by demonstrating that she engaged in a statu-", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "torily protected activity when she filed her EEOC charge,", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "that IMS engaged in an adverse employment action when it", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "listed her name in its SEC filings, and that there was suffi-", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "cient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that IMS", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "listed her name because Greengrass filed the EEOC charge.", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "Celia Greengrass began working as an account executive", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "at IMS in January 2007. On September 10, 2007, Greengrass", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "made a written complaint to IMS alleging harassment by", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "Kevin Anderson, IMS’s Las Vegas General Manager. Two", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "days later, John Strabley, IMS’s CEO, forwarded a copy of", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "the complaint to Anderson, the alleged harasser, along with", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "the message, “Call me before you explode.” Greengrass quit", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "her job at IMS on November 25, 2007. On January 20, 2008,", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "Greengrass filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC,", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "alleging sex discrimination, national origin discrimination,", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "and retaliation.", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "As a publicly traded company, IMS is subject to the", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "SEC’s annual filing requirements. In particular, item 103 of", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "SEC Regulation S-K requires companies to describe any ma-", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "terial legal proceedings, including the principal parties, facts", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "giving rise to the proceeding, and the relief sought. See 17", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "C.F.R. § 229.103 (1982). In March 2008, IMS’s Treasurer and", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "CFO, Danny Weibling, consulted with an outside account-", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "ant, Derek Webb, regarding whether Greengrass’s EEOC", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "complaint needed to be mentioned in the company’s SEC", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "filings. Following this consultation, IMS did not refer to", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "Greengrass’s complaint in its 2008 disclosures. It did, how-", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "No. 13-2901 3", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "ever, without naming the complainant, refer to a different", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "EEOC complaint brought against the company. IMS’s 10-Q", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "forms for the periods ending March 31, 2008, June 30, 2008,", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "and September 30, 2008 (all of which were prepared and", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "filed after Weibling’s discussion with Webb) reported that", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "IMS was engaged in litigation, but did not mention the", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "names of parties, instead referring to the litigants as “former", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "employees.”", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "At some point in July 2008, IMS received correspondence", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "from the EEOC regarding Greengrass’s complaint. Appar-", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "ently, the agency sought information regarding other sexual", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "harassment claims leveled against the company. On July 29,", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "2008, IMS’s general counsel, Martin Sklapsky, sent an email", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "to the company’s management team (including Weibling,", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Strabley, and President/CEO Donald Mardak) regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "how forthcoming IMS should be with the EEOC. It stated,", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "[T]he EEOC has finally responded to the …", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "Greengrass complaint. At this point, they're", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "just looking for some additional information.", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "One of the items they’re asking about is any", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "other sexual harassment claims made by any", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "employee between Nov 2005 and June 2008.", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "Obviously, the John Lounsbury complaint will", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "have to be included but what about the two is-", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "sues raised by Carol Cannedy?", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "I don’t think the issue with Stan is a problem.", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "She brought it to our attention, we addressed it", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "with Stan and it was done. The problem is the", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "issue with Paul. There was a complaint made", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "to Paul G, the situation was discussed with", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "Paul W and then the behavior she was com-", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "4 No. 13-2901", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "plaining about occurred at least one other time", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "after the discussion. The question is, do we in-", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "clude this in our response to the EEOC?", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "They’re asking about other complaints because", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "they’re looking for a pattern of conduct by", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "IMS. Their logic would be that if we have mul-", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "tiple complaints, obviously we’re doing some-", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "thing wrong.", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "Our problem is that we don’t know if Celia", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "was aware of that issue and told the EEOC of", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "other complaints made. The letter from the", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "EEOC appears to just be a form letter and the", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "request for that information is likely a standard", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "question. I’m asking for your opinions on this", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "because no matter how we respond, IMS has", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "some potential liability.", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "If we do not mention it and Celia already re-", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "ported it to them, it makes it appear IMS is try-", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "ing to hide something. If we do report it, that", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "means we’ve had three sexual harassment", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "complaints in about eight months. That’s the", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "sort of pattern they’re looking for and since all", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "the complaints are from different offices, it", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "would give them the impression that it’s a", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "company-wide problem, not just an issue with", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "one or two employees. That’s the sort of situa-", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "tion where the EEOC could step in and file suit", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "themselves. If Celia has to litigate this herself,", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "IMS is probably not going to get a large dam-", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "ages award because she likely doesn’t have the", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "resources for a lengthy court fight. However, if", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "No. 13-2901 5", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "the EEOC files suit, that is no longer an issue", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "and they’ll be looking to punish IMS for a pat-", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "tern of behavior, not necessarily just this one", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "incident.", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "This all may not matter anyway. One of the", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "things they asked for was a list of IMS employ-", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "ees. I've asked for clarification on whether they", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "want a list of all employees or for just the Las", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "Vegas office. If they want a list of every em-", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "ployee, it would seem they intend to conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "an investigation of the entire company, not just", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "the Las Vegas office. If that’s the case, we may", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "have no choice but to disclose the incidents", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "with both Paul and Stan.", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "Around January 12, 2009, IMS received notice that the", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "EEOC wanted to conduct interviews regarding Greengrass’s", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "complaint. This signaled a major ramping up of the agency’s", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "involvement in Greengrass’s case.", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "For its next SEC filing, dated April 6, 2009, IMS chose to", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "include Greengrass’s complaint and to specifically name her.", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "The “Legal Proceedings” section of its annual 10-K filing", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "stated: “On January 20, 2008, Celia Greengrass filed a sexual", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "harassment complaint with the [EEOC]. The claim is still", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "under investigation by the EEOC but IMS believes the claims", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "to be meritless and will vigorously defend itself.” (In reality,", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "Greengrass’s EEOC claim did not allege sexual harassment,", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "but rather sex discrimination, national origin discrimination,", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "and retaliation against IMS.) These disclosures were repeat-", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "ed in the “Legal Proceedings” portion of IMS’s Form 10-K/A", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "Amendment No. 1 Annual Report and in a quarterly disclo-", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "sure dated May 14, 2009. Other former employees with", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "6 No. 13-2901", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "pending claims against IMS were also specifically named in", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "these filings.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "On September 3, 2009, the EEOC found reasonable cause", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "to believe that Greengrass and other females as a class were", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "subject to harassment because of their sex and national", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "origin, and that Greengrass and females, as a class, were", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "constructively discharged because of their sex, national", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "origin, and in retaliation for engaging in protected activity.", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "Around December 24, 2009, the parties resolved Green-", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "grass’s original EEOC complaint through conciliation, which", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "did not include IMS’s rehiring of Greengrass.", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "IMS reported the resolution of its dispute with Green-", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "grass in the company’s Form 10-K Annual Report for 2009,", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "stating, “During 2009, the company was defendant in two", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "cases of note.… Settlement was reached in the EEOC matter", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "in November 2009.” It did not refer to any other parties by", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "name. In later filed quarterly and annual reports, IMS con-", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "tinued to refer generically to plaintiffs and defendants in on-", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "going litigation, not identifying them by name.", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "After leaving IMS, Greengrass struggled to find and", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "maintain regular employment. Greengrass attributes her", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "post-IMS difficulties to the SEC filings that identified her by", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "name. She claims that a Google search of her name draws", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "multiple results regarding IMS’s SEC filings that include her", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "name. She also claims that a recruiter informed her she was", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "“unemployable” due to this information.", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "On September 28, 2010, Greengrass filed a second EEOC", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "complaint against IMS, alleging it retaliated against her be-", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "cause of her previous complaint based on its SEC filings. On", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "March 25, 2011, the EEOC found “reasonable cause” to be-", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "No. 13-2901 7", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "lieve IMS had violated Title VII’s retaliation provision by", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "“providing information regarding her previous Charge of", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "Discrimination on a public record to preclude her from ob-", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "taining new employment.” The parties were unable to re-", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "solve the dispute through conciliation and the EEOC issued", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "Greengrass a right-to-sue letter.", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "Greengrass sued IMS alleging retaliation under Title VII", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "2000e, et seq. After discovery closed, both Greengrass and", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "IMS moved for summary judgment. The district court grant-", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "ed summary judgment to IMS on all claims, finding Green-", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "grass had “no evidence” of causation, and she appealed.", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "II. ANALYSIS", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "Greengrass challenges the district court’s conclusion that", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "she did not provide enough evidence that IMS retaliated", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "against her for asserting her rights under Title VII to survive", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "summary judgment. We review the district court’s grant of", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "summary judgment de novo, “constru[ing] all facts and rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "sonable inferences from the record in a light most favorable", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "to the nonmoving party.” Magin v. Monsanto Co., 420 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "679, 686 (7th Cir. 2005). “Summary judgment is appropriate", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "when there are no genuine issues of material fact and judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "ment as a matter of law is warranted for the moving party.”", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "Gross v. PPG Indus., Inc., 636 F.3d 884, 888 (7th Cir. 2011) (in-", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "ternal citations omitted).", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "A Title VII plaintiff can prove retaliation using either the", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "direct or indirect method. Majors v. Gen. Elec. Co., 714 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "527, 537 (7th Cir. 2013). Under the direct method, which", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "Greengrass relies upon, a plaintiff must prove (1) that she", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) that she was", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "8 No. 13-2901", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) that", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "there was a causal connection between the two. O'Leary v.", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "Accretive Health, Inc., 657 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir. 2011).", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "There is no dispute that Greengrass satisfied the first el-", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "ement, as her formal EEOC charges were “the most obvious", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "form of statutorily protected activity.” Silverman v. Board of", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "Educ. of City of Chicago, 637 F.3d 729, 740 (7th Cir. 2011). We", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "also find (and IMS does not dispute) that listing Green-", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "grass’s name in publicly available SEC filings (and referring", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "to her complaint as “meritless”) constituted a materially ad-", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "verse employment action. As Greengrass’s allegations re-", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "garding the recruiter who called her “unemployable” make", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "clear, an employee’s decision to file an EEOC complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "might be negatively viewed by future employers. So, nam-", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "ing EEOC claimants in publicly available SEC filings could", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "”dissuade[] a reasonable worker from making or supporting", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "a charge of discrimination”—the essence of a materially ad-", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "verse employment action. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry.", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006); see also Veprinsky v. Fluor", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "Daniel, Inc., 87 F.3d 881, 888-91 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "“post-termination acts of retaliation that have a nexus to", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "employment,” e.g., by “imping[ing] on [an employee’s] fu-", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "ture employment prospects” are actionable under Title VII).", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "We now turn to the causation requirement, which the", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "district court found Greengrass failed to satisfy. To demon-", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "strate a “causal link” between the protected activity and the", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "adverse employment action, a plaintiff must show the de-", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "fendant “would not have taken the adverse … action but for", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "[her] protected activity.” King v. Preferred Technical Grp., 166", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "F.3d 887, 892 (7th Cir. 1999). Direct evidence typically re-", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "quires an admission by the employer of discriminatory ani-", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "No. 13-2901 9", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "mus, which is “rare.” Benders v. Bellows & Bellows, 515 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "757, 764 (7th Cir. 2008). But a plaintiff may also supply the", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "causal link through circumstantial evidence from which a", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "jury may infer intentional discrimination. Stephens v. Erick-", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "son, 569 F.3d 779, 787 (7th Cir. 2009). Such circumstantial ev-", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "idence may include suspicious timing, ambiguous state-", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "ments of animus, evidence other employees were treated dif-", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "ferently, or evidence the employer’s proffered reason for the", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "adverse action was pretextual. Coleman v. Donahoe, 667 F.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "835, 860 (7th Cir. 2012). When the plaintiff has “assemble[d]", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "from various scraps of circumstantial evidence enough to", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "allow the trier of fact to conclude that it is more likely than", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "not that discrimination lay behind the adverse action, then", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "summary judgment for the defendant is not appropriate.”", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "Morgan v. SVT, LLC, 724 F.3d 990, 996 (7th Cir. 2013).", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "Greengrass has assembled a convincing array of circum-", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "stantial evidence. We begin with her evidence of suspicious", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "timing. Suspicious timing is generally found when “an ad-", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "verse employment action follows close on the heels of pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "tected expression.” Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, 679 F.3d 957, 966", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "(7th Cir. 2012). IMS argues that it did not begin listing names", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "in its SEC filing until 14 months after Greengrass filed her", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "first EEOC complaint, undercutting any suggestion of suspi-", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "cious timing. However, this is not the only relevant", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "timeframe. IMS did not become aware of the EEOC’s inten-", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "tion to seriously pursue Greengrass’s claim until January", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "2009, when the agency informed IMS it would be taking in-", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "terviews. Before this point—as Sklapsy’s July 29, 2008 email", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "to IMS management makes clear—the company was confi-", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "dent it could avoid a “large damages award” because, with-", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "out the EEOC’s involvement, Greengrass “likely [would not]", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "have the resources for a lengthy court fight.” Thus, a reason-", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "10 No. 13-2901", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "able jury could find that IMS decided to retaliate against her", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "not when she filed her charge, but when IMS saw that the", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "EEOC was taking the charge seriously, and that the retalia-", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "tion occurred in its next scheduled SEC filing on April 6,", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "2009. See Loudermilk v. Best Pallet Co., 636 F.3d 312, 315 (7th", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "Cir. 2011) (noting whether amount of time lapsed is suspi-", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "cious “depends on context”).", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "Greengrass presented evidence of animus as well. A rea-", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "sonable jury could, for example, interpret Sklapsky’s July", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "2008 email as evincing disdain for the EEOC process and an-", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "imus against Greengrass for filing her complaint. Animus", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "might also be inferred from Strabley’s decision to forward", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "Greengrass’s complaint to her alleged harasser with the", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "message, “Call me before you explode.” The fact that IMS", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "employees do not mention how IMS might retaliate is irrele-", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "vant since they raise the reasonable inference that IMS held", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "animus about the process and Greengrass’s decision to en-", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "gage it. See Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "703 F.3d 966, 974 (7th Cir. 2012) (noting whether ambiguous", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "statements are discriminatory, retaliatory, or benign “is an", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "appropriate question for a jury”).", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "Greengrass also provided evidence of pretext. Pretext can", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "be shown by “identif[ying] … weaknesses, implausibilities,", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "inconsistencies, or contradictions” in an employer’s asserted", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "reason for taking an adverse employment action such “that a", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "reasonable person could find [it] unworthy of credence.”", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "Coleman, 667 F.3d at 852-53 (citations omitted). IMS main-", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "tains that it changed its policy to include names on its SEC", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "filings based on advice from “auditors and others” regard-", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "ing compliance with SEC Regulation S-K item 103. The dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "trict court agreed, finding that “[u]ltimately, it was uncer-", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "No. 13-2901 11", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "tainty over the filing requirements, not discriminatory ani-", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "mus, which led to the inclusion of Greengrass’s name on", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "IMS’s SEC filings.” However, IMS’s multiple shifts in poli-", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "cy—from not including litigants’ names, to listing them, and", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "then not including them again—could lead a reasonable ju-", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "ror to find that IMS is “dissembling” when it contends that it", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "listed Greengrass’s name in response to advice regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "compliance with SEC regulations. See id. (noting pretext can", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "be shown by evidence of “dissembling”). As Greengrass", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "points out, IMS had also consulted with an outside account-", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "ant, Derek Webb, before filing its 2008 disclosures, which", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "did not identify litigants by name. And IMS offers no evi-", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "dence of when it received the alleged advice to change poli-", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "cy. Where, as here, “there is a question of fact as to the be-", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "lievability of an employer’s purported reasons for an em-", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "ployment decision then, ‘even if the evidence presented by", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "[the plaintiff] does not compel the conclusion that [her em-", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "ployer] discriminated against [her] when making its ... deci-", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "sion, at a bare minimum it suffices to defeat [the employer’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "summary judgment motion.’” Rudin v. Lincoln Land Commu-", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "nity College, 420 F.3d 712, 726 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting Court-", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "ney v. Biosound, Inc., 42 F.3d 414, 423 (7th Cir. 1994)). In light", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "of this evidence, summary judgment for the defendant was", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "inappropriate.", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "III. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "The judgment of the district court is REVERSED and the", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_342" } ], "word_count": 2860, "cites": [ "548 U.S. 53", "420 F.3d\n679", "636 F.3d 884", "714 F.3d\n527", "657 F.3d 625", "637 F.3d 729", "87 F.3d 881", "166\nF.3d 887", "515 F.3d\n757", "569 F.3d 779", "667 F.3d\n835", "724 F.3d 990", "679 F.3d 957", "636 F.3d 312", "703 F.3d 966", "420 F.3d 712", "42 F.3d 414" ], "cited_by": [ "us:ca7-25-3164-2026-08-04" ], "sha256": "2045bc549cf176a626de2748a8ddb68f246c16fad604e2d8544c085ae053b945", "source_url": "http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2015/D01-12/C:13-2901:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1483508:S:0", "fetched_at": "2026-10-07T11:54:48.11+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "2045bc549cf176a626de2748a8ddb68f246c16fad604e2d8544c085ae053b945", "recomputed_sha256": "2045bc549cf176a626de2748a8ddb68f246c16fad604e2d8544c085ae053b945", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-09T10:42:38.600Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:5b96701a6493c0d053fd981edc5d5f9276b6e78f536954c9f2d293f9e4cc7627", "version": "legal-2026-10-09", "expires": "2026-10-10T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-09+legal-2026-10-09+2026-10-09T09:23:08", "content_hash": "sha256:5b96701a6493c0d053fd981edc5d5f9276b6e78f536954c9f2d293f9e4cc7627", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-09T11:42:39.176Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca7-13-2901-2015-01-12" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering" }