From at present’s resolution by Decide Roy Walton in Doe v. Wyndham Trip Possession, Inc.:
On this employment discrimination case, Plaintiff sues her former employer after she was allegedly raped by one co-worker and sexually harassed and assaulted by one other…. Federal Rule of Civil Process 10(a) requires that “each pleading” in federal courtroom “should identify all of the events.” However a slim exception exists when a celebration can set up “a considerable privateness proper which outweighs the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.” …
Plaintiff argues for the use a pseudonym as a result of the sexual assault allegations concern data of the utmost intimacy and revealing her identify will topic her to substantial social stigma. In circumstances involving sexual assault, private embarrassment alone doesn’t justify use of a pseudonym. See Doe v. Sheely (eleventh Cir. 2019) (“This Courtroom has stated that ‘private embarrassment’ alone will not be sufficient for go away to proceed anonymously.”); see additionally Plaintiff B v. Francis (eleventh Cir. 2011) (“courts have typically denied the safety of anonymity the place plaintiffs allege sexual assault, even when revealing the plaintiff’s identification could trigger her to undergo some private embarrassment”). And whereas social stigma can overcome the presumption of openness in courtroom proceedings, Plaintiff should set up that issues of social stigma are well-founded and particularized. See E.Okay v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2022); Doe v. Neverson (eleventh Cir. 2020) (differentiating normal allegations of potential private embarrassment from the state of affairs there the place plaintiff made particular allegations of being from a “religious Muslim household” who would expertise disgrace and hurt to her household and repute and submitted examples of particular harassing and threatening feedback posted on-line). Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that “this matter is prone to be extremely contentious” and that “potential prospects and employers will merely google her identify and uncover” this case are speculative and inadequate to beat the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.
The courtroom additionally famous, in a footnote, that, “Plaintiff additionally voluntarily posted her allegations on social media which undercuts her declare of doable social stigma or public harassment. Plaintiff can not avail herself of a public discussion board to make her claims in opposition to Defendant after which defend her identification from public disclosure in opposition to the sturdy presumption that judicial filings are issues of public import.” However this appears to not have been central to the courtroom’s evaluation—it was, in spite of everything, a footnote. Word additionally that the posting was apparently on Fb, and thus presumably aimed toward people who find themselves comparatively near her; it wasn’t searchable by the world at massive.
For a way of simply how broad and deep the cut up on these questions, see Apps. 2a & 2b (pp. 1430-37) of my The Legislation of Pseudonymous Litigation.
