<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Sued if you do: SEC vs. EEOC	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/02/sued-sec-vs-eeoc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/02/sued-sec-vs-eeoc/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:53:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Jason Barney		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/02/sued-sec-vs-eeoc/comment-page-1/#comment-319247</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jason Barney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:53:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=50971#comment-319247</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[First Amendment anyone?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First Amendment anyone?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: DEM		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/02/sued-sec-vs-eeoc/comment-page-1/#comment-319244</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[DEM]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 15:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=50971#comment-319244</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The upshot of CA7&#039;s decision seems to be: would-be employment discrimination plaintiffs have some sort of right to anonymity.  How can that be correct, given that such claims are usually resolved via court proceedings open to the public?  In other words, had Greengrass continued to pursue her claims, prospective employers would have been able to discover her claims eventually, whether or not IMS disclosed them.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The upshot of CA7&#8217;s decision seems to be: would-be employment discrimination plaintiffs have some sort of right to anonymity.  How can that be correct, given that such claims are usually resolved via court proceedings open to the public?  In other words, had Greengrass continued to pursue her claims, prospective employers would have been able to discover her claims eventually, whether or not IMS disclosed them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
