U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg this week granted a trans litigant’s request to proceed anonymously in her antibias lawsuit against the University of Pennsylvania.
On July 2, Penn and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania were sued by “Jane Doe,” a trans woman and former employee at HUP who alleges she was illegally fired from her job at HUP after experiencing severe harassment while a patient there.
Also, on July 2, Doe filed a request with Goldberg that she be permitted to move forward with the litigation using a pseudonym. But in an Aug. 2 legal filing — which Penn defendants subsequently withdrew — defense attorneys said Doe shouldn’t be permitted to proceed anonymously. They urged Goldberg to unseal Doe’s real name.
Doe’s anonymity request emphasized the danger that trans people face. “Trans people are stigmatized,” the request stated. “The abuse they are subjected to ranges from mocking and harmful comments in the media, to estrangement, suicide and murder.” The request also noted that Doe “has been insulted, isolated and assaulted for being trans. Based on her experience, [Doe] fears that disclosure of her condition and the relief she seeks here will bring her severe harm.”
Penn’s withdrawn filing noted the strong presumption that litigants’ real names are to be used in federal cases.
“In her publicly-filed complaint, [Doe] hurls heinous allegations at the Penn defendants, including acts of ‘transphobic hatred’ and the purposeful commission of medical malpractice because of ‘hate’ for transgender people. The Penn defendants’ good names and reputations have been threatened without the benefit of using fictitious names in this litigation. For the sake of fairness and open access to the courts, [Doe] should be required to proceed in her own name in this litigation, and her motion to proceed in anonymity should be denied,” Penn’s withdrawn filing stated.
Moreover, it claimed that using Doe’s real name wouldn’t deter others from filing lawsuits in the future. “[Doe] has presented no evidence that this court’s denial of anonymity will deter other similarly situated plaintiffs from bringing forth their claims, and therefore, this factor weighs in favor of disclosure,” according to the withdrawn filing.
Penn’s withdrawn filing concluded by noting that “this [Third] Circuit’s strong presumption of openness weighs heavily in favor of disclosure,” and that “[Doe] should not be permitted to wage this attack on the Penn defendants’ good names and reputations from behind the shield of a pseudonym. The public has the right to know the identities of both [Doe] and defendants.”
Goldberg’s Dec. 9 order granting Doe’s request for anonymity didn’t specify his reasoning for doing so. Neither side had a comment for this update.