Seattle Attorneys Blog
Title IX accusations can have a detrimental effect on a student’s education, job prospects, and future. Alleged victims who file suit against their schools for claims related to Title IX often litigate the case under a pseudonym. Accused students who file suit for claims arising from a Title IX complaint against them also often seek to proceed under a pseudonym. In a recent nonprecedential disposition, the Seventh Circuit has again denied an accused student the use of a pseudonym in litigation.
The plaintiff was a student at an Illinois university when another student, identified by the court as “Jane Roe,” filed a Title IX complaint against him. Following an investigation, the university found the plaintiff culpable and charged him with sexual assault and drug-related offenses. The plaintiff and Roe had both reportedly ingested “molly” before the incident. The plaintiff was ultimately dismissed from the university.
He filed suit against various university defendants, seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunctive relief, reinstatement of his status as a full-time student, and reversal of the findings. He alleged the university did not provide him with sufficient due process and had discriminated against him based on race, gender, and disability during the investigation.
The plaintiff moved to proceed under a pseudonym due to reputational and privacy concerns. The court granted the motion “for good cause.” The court entered a protective order following a hearing.
The defendants did not initially object, but subsequently moved to remove the plaintiff’s pseudonym based on recent 7th Circuit decisions. The court determined there was a good-faith basis for the defendants to request reconsideration of the issue.
The plaintiff argued that the allegations would subject him to harassment and violence and that his disabilities supported use of a pseudonym.
The court determined an evidentiary hearing was not needed after the defendants provided an email from Roe stating she was not concerned about any effects from the disclosure of the plaintiff’s identity. The court granted the motion.
It is within the discretion of a federal district judge to allow a party to proceed under a pseudonym if justified based on a balance of the harms. In the Seventh Circuit, embarrassment or reputational damage do not justify proceeding under a pseudonym. The Seventh Circuit noted that Title IX cases are not an exception.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing he would risk substantial harm if he proceeded under his name. He argued that there was a tangible risk of retaliation due to the heightened prejudice against sexual relationships between White women and Black men.
The Seventh Circuit pointed out the plaintiff needed to offer specific facts particularizing the threat of racial animus to the plaintiff rather than information regarding the history of racial violence to show a “tangible risk of retaliation.”
The plaintiff argued he would potentially face lost job prospects, lost privacy, and reputational harm. The Seventh Circuit noted the use of a pseudonym is not justified by a fear of stigmatization or a desire for privacy.
The Seventh Circuit also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that a multifactor approach should be used to determine if a party can proceed anonymously.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed and remanded the case, noting the plaintiff could proceed with his case under his own name. Otherwise, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice.
Circuits have different approaches to determine if a party may proceed anonymously, and the Ninth Circuit would not necessarily have reached the same decision as the Seventh Circuit. A student accused of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct should consult with a Washington Title IX defense attorney right away to protect their rights during the investigation and any resulting disciplinary proceeding. Schedule a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC by calling (206) 622-6562.