John Doe, an adult former student at the University of Southern Indiana, was found responsible for rape and forcible fondling following a Title IX hearing panel's decision. After being suspended, Doe filed a federal lawsuit alleging Title IX discrimination, due process violations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While the district court granted summary judgment for the university, Doe sought to litigate his appeal under a pseudonym to protect his identity. The district court denied this request, finding no substantial risk of harm, and the Seventh Circuit reviewed whether that denial constituted an abuse of discretion.
The Seventh Circuit applied a strong presumption that adult parties must litigate under their real names to ensure the integrity of judicial records and public transparency. The court reiterated that this presumption applies even in Title IX cases involving sensitive allegations of sexual assault. To proceed under a pseudonym, a plaintiff must show a substantial risk of physical harm or retaliation by third parties that goes beyond the embarrassment or reputational damage that naturally follows from the truth of the court's findings. The court found that Doe's evidence of threats from 2021 was insufficient to meet this standard, noting the passage of time, the lack of intervening harm, and Doe's relocation. Furthermore, the court declined to broaden the standard to include mental health risks, stating that the line between stress and mental illness is too vague to justify an exception. The court also rejected the argument that the confidentiality of the underlying university proceedings or the merits of the case should influence the pseudonym decision, emphasizing that such collateral orders must be decided without assessing the merits of the underlying action.
The decision affirms that adult plaintiffs must generally use their real names in federal court, limiting anonymity to cases with specific, substantial risks of physical harm or retaliation. The court provided Doe with a specific remedy: he may choose to dismiss his appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 to avoid public disclosure of his name, or he may proceed to a merits decision that will identify him by his real name. The underlying Title IX claims remain to be adjudicated on their merits if the appeals are not dismissed.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download