Seventh Circuit Finds that Naming EEOC Claimant in SEC Filing may have been Retaliatory

Celia Greengrass worked as an account executive for International Monetary Systems, Ltd. ("IMS"). In September 2007, Greengrass made an internal complaint about alleged harassment by a manager; two months later, she quit her job. In January 2008, Greengrass filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation.

In March 2008, IMS was due to make its annual SEC filings, which required it to disclose any material legal proceedings, including the principal parties, facts, and relief sought. Upon consultation with an outside accountant, IMS elected to not include Greengrass's EEOC complaint in the SEC filing information. IMC did, however, without naming the complainant, refer to a different EEOC complaint brought against the company.

In July 2008, IMS received a notice about the Greengrass's charge, in which the EEOC requested information about other sexual harassment claims against the company. Around January 12, 2009, the company received a notice that the EEOC intended to interview witnesses in connection with Greengrass's claim. In its next SEC filing in April 2009, IMS included Greengrass's claim in the pending litigation section of the report, and identified Greengrass by name. The report stated:

On January 20, 2008, Celia Greengrass filed a sexual harassment complaint with the [EEOC]. The claim is still under investigation by the EEOC but IMS believes the claims to be meritless and will vigorously defend itself. 

Another similar disclosure was made in May 2009. In the following disclosure, dated August 2009, IMS disclosed Greengrass's complaint, along with other employee complaints, but stopped identifying Greengrass by name. In September 2009, the EEOC found reasonable cause in connection with Greengrass's charge, and the matter was settled by the parties. 

After leaving IMS, Greengrass struggled to maintain regular employment. She attributed these difficulties to the SEC filing identifying her by name, and claimed that a Google search of her name draws multiple results regarding that filing, making her "unemployable." In September 2010, Greengrass filed a second complaint with the EEOC, alleging that it retaliated against her because of her previous complaint by including her name in its SEC filings. After she received a Notice of Right to Sue letter, Greengrass filed a lawsuit in Federal district court in Wisconsin, alleging that the company had retaliated against her in violation of Title VII. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of IMS on the basis that Greengrass failed to establish a causal connection between her EEOC filing and the alleged retaliation. Greengrass appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. 

On appeal in the case, Greengrass v. International Monetary Systems, Inc., No. 13-2901 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2015), the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court's holding, finding there was enough evidence of causation to send the case to a jury. The Court found that timing was suspicious because the SEC disclosure was made after IMS was aware that the EEOC was actively pursuing Greengrass's charge. Among other evidence, the Court found that IMS's disclosure of Greengrass's name, when it had not previously or subsequently disclosed individual names, was evidence of pretext. The Court also referenced an internal IMS email revealing disdain for the EEOC process and animus against Greengrass, which it deemed evidence of a retaliatory animus. 

This case illustrates the need for employers to practice consistency when publicly disclosing pending litigation or administrative charges. Employers should balance their reporting obligations with the privacy protections afforded to current and former employees  With any questions, contact your Hinshaw employment attorney.