is garcia against sigma trying international about subject matter jurisdiction certainly during her deposition the plaintive conceded that she was not injured by the complaint of conduct and that raises a question of whether we have a case or controversy within the scope of article three i would like you to address that question how can i run injured plaintive have standing to sue not complete she did testify to emotional distress caused by these disclosures she did she did concede that she has not  yes she's a very talented person without pay period among her hands but before she got to court she had been reinstated and she had been given all of her back  not be clear to you that my question stems from the recent supreme court decision in spoken a o which said roughly that simply a violation of a statute is not enough for a case or country there has to be a concrete injury that's what i'm asking about what is the concrete in related sigma trons litigation position in ongoing litigation they don't appear to be any different from what signature on said to the judge the district judge  jury this court on the appeal it's for there to be damage there would have to be some marginal injury from stating in one form something that had been repeatedly stated in public before that's what  look let's just suppose for discussion purposes that you can clear a standing hurdle ok you know the point that judge mannion raised isn't that in other words that there's been no adverse employment consequence to your client doesn't that become a problem for you even if you can get beyond standing in your into the elements of the retaliation claim under title seven well i don't believe so i mean that was the district court's ruling but i don't believe so because of the fact in burlington as i explained and because  yes ok and so if you agree with that what is it here it is the damage to her reputation it is the now when really making a false statement about her in a forum i'm right or i'm not the right word but in they you know the setting where it's much more likely yeah that's where this ended up it's plastered all over the federal reporter lexus westlaw hall of the legal reporting services it's they are in that all of those much more widely circulated than documents filed with the f c c well it's there in a context where it is also discussed and in terms of the outcome which was that all of this all of these declar and i would submit that if someone were looking for information about my client in the context of a background check for a new job relationship with any former employee employer so that the challenge i think for you miss corner is that your client has dealt you a tough hand on that argument factually right the argument the argument make sound sense that if there's something out there publicly that could damage your future job prospects which is the argument you know you're making that you're harmed but your client testified did she not as judge mannion pointed out that she's not only content in her current position she can identify any damage that she's experienced from the statements that were made so that's what you've got to you've got a bridge that you've got to bridge the argument you're making with the facts that your clients dealt here and i would  that if there was an adverse employment action right and for that we would rely both on burlington as i had to say and of course this court's decision in green grass where the facts aren't quite s that was found to be any adverse employment action because it could three it could be seen as a as damaging her future  well and it could be something red green perhaps that was a little bit different situation because greengrass after she left the one company i mean your opinion pretty clearly lays out the difficulty that she was having finding new employment you know situated exactly like celia greengrass was well seeley greengrass was still looking for employment yes i don't remember that timeframe she had an account of encounter with a recruiter who told her that this was damaging to her prospects but we have offered and again i'm with we argue that that it was an error an abuse of discretion for the district  every so while every four years i believe for a fraction while she has not yet she certainly could and in that in that circumstance recruiters are likely to find less negative statement about her completely out of context of the fact that this was found to be all this was found to be false that she did not openly admit making an error in she  she was fired as retaliation for her complaint that is the established fact anything else is pretext and rejected and it is not fully rally describe the case did not mention her by name and was not objectionable they know how to do it right they got it right the st time and when they switched   no innocent intent in including a kind of information in an f c c disclosure that doesn't add anything it has no  the conclusive fact is that she was fired because she had many else in complying that's the whole no you know what that is that is her position the employer stated its position to the employer its signature on state in accurately what its litigating position was that would have been an easy thing to do if they had wanted to do it they didn't do it got cut off so let me try the might i just have a brief brief question you can answer it if you want to move on move on it's this is that you know you're focused on the on the reasons that sigma tron did this and i understand why and the reason why is because it surely ston in hurt for the plaintiff to see this disclosure i get that part of it but is that motive and purpose and reason however you want to characterize that is that the way illinois law works with respect to innocent construction i didn't see you turn in so much on purpose motive reason know yeah but by reading by reading the words of what's disclosed right but in other words by focusing on what what was said or what they what the alleged defamatory statement is and then based upon its plain import wait what's the intended effect of this and can you give it an innocent construction right we're not asking kind of a more subjective question than that we're focusing on the words that were used and i think that the words that we use need to be read in light of the likely intended meaning the district court suggested two witness and constructions one it spent more time on in its decision was that this was a that there is a sort of a general rule that a statement about a former employee talks only about the employee in construction was as a description of litigation and so secondly as i've said before i never say this is a description of litigation as a description of litigation it leaves out how some very important points for example that the court awarded them awarded the plaintiff significant punitive damages punitive damages are never discussed here some of that balance might have taken some of this thing out but basically it looks like they're trying to to convince the reader that the court was wrong and that these are the facts that happened you to pay attention to jurisdiction just as i asked ms corn about it instead of leaping straight into the merits we need to figure out whether this is a case properly in federal court at all so i would like you to address the question whether it that you have to actually have an injury that exists it can't be theoretical if it's if my memory is correct and under that standard i would agree under that the court probably lacks subject matter jurisdiction but that did not come out until her deposition testimony now and that's all fine but a court must satisfy itself about jurisdiction it every moment this issue should have been discussed in the district court and apparently wasn't by either side it was not discussed by the needing to require an actual injury not just the radical injury that there is potentially a standing problem here but i would not because there's something no potential there is a standing problem the question is whether there is a solution to the standing and your honor without further breaking and research on this i would not be in a position that this is something the counsel for both sides have an obligation to raise and consider on their own brief your honor as to the summary judgment the court district regretted summary judgment under the new title seven claim because mind of chose to proceed under the direct she has to show that she engage she fails to present evidence of any of the factors in the judgment can be affirmed on any mind if i don't know the truth of bring grass and judge better distinguish that case because in greengrass she was told she was in stark contrast with the green grass and i think that or what they did or did hear an injury of her damages in addition to the standing issue in burlington the  the parties from the e e o c charged through the jury's verdict and both judgment mr for was what how do you respond a little bit more it's a little higher level of generality to the point of saying this is really bizarre you know what happened here you look at the f c c disclosures even after the adverse jury verdict for the company and the disclosure says the company's a defendant and employment related lawsuit the pla one got three hundred thousand dollars of damages kind of not much more than that correct and that's basically a couple sentences and then you know the district court denies a post trial challenge to that and then all of a sudden we have an invocation of regulation ask a and paragraph upon paragraph describing that prior litigation including for the st time in a disclosure contain this particular statement about why from the company's perspective she was terminated don't you understand why she thinks that's troubling your honor the timing was specifically because it became material to save metron when the district court denied the post the verdict was for three hundred thousand dollars actually in excess of three hundred thousand dollars so material to disclose information to its share but i think with significant honors is if you look at that it's not her it doesn't say that she is incapable of working as a supervisor or in her feel if it injured by this because quote be improper product segregated and did not ship and then the next paragraph is what struck me most sigma tran identifies the filing of the lawsuit in size that plaintiff has asserted a quote pattern of unwanted sexual advances now i don't know a company on earth that wants to tell its shareholders that it has been accused of a pattern of unwanted sexual advances but it put that statement in literally nothing more than reporting on everything that happened at trial summary judgment through post judgment and the district court correctly says look if you look at the whole thing even it suggests that that she had one that day did z portion of title seven relating to the elevation what specifically about participation she was still participating in the case that had been filed back in two thousand and eleven so there was no gap and even if there have been with about the intent of the speaker writer in this case and i also the context the context of the nasties the disclosure is one where the audience expect that everything is going to be word for word checked and accurate if they had wanted to say this was their litigation position they could have said and they did