The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
No Pseudonymity for Plaintiffs Challenging Employer's COVID-19 Protocols
"[C]ourts should not permit parties to proceed pseudonymously just to protect the parties' professional or economic life."
In Berens v. Yale New Haven Health Servs. Corp., decided yesterday by Judge Janet Hall (D. Conn.)'s decision, Yale New Haven Health employees sued to challenge Yale New Haven's COVID-19 vaccine protocols. Those plaintiffs who sued pseudonymously apparently all received exemptions from the vaccine mandate, but "were required to submit negative COVID-19 test results each week" from mid-2021 to mid-2022. They are alleging that Yale New Haven, acting in concert with the government, violated their due process and equal protection rights.
The merits, though, aren't yet before the court; rather, the question was whether the plaintiffs could sue pseudonymously, hiding their identities from both the defendant and the public. No, the court said:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), "[t]he title of the complaint must name all the parties[.]" This requirement "serves the vital purpose of facilitating public scrutiny of judicial proceedings and therefore cannot be set aside lightly." {"[I]dentifying the parties to [a] proceeding is an important dimension of publicness [because] [t]he people have a right to know who is using their courts."} … When determining whether pseudonyms are appropriately used, the court, in its discretion, must balance "the plaintiff's interest in anonymity … against both the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant." …
This case involves a company policy requiring COVID-19 vaccination or testing, and, therefore, is not a highly sensitive matter. Indeed, "[t]he fact that a case involves a medical issue is not a sufficient reason for allowing the use of a fictitious name, even though many people are understandably secretive about their medical problems." …
The anonymous plaintiffs argue that they are justifiably concerned that Yale New Haven Health will retaliate against them if their names are disclosed. In support of this concern, the anonymous plaintiffs suggest in their memorandum that at least two of the named plaintiffs were terminated because they initiated this litigation. The Complaint, however, asserts that at least two of the three named plaintiffs, Ms. Berens and Mr. Kelly, were terminated for refusing to comply with Yale New Haven Health's vaccination policy, not for initiating this lawsuit.
The anonymous plaintiffs represent that they are concerned that revealing their names may also harm their professional reputations and livelihoods. However, "courts should not permit parties to proceed pseudonymously just to protect the parties' professional or economic life." … [Moreover,] "[s]uits against private parties may cause damage to their good names and reputations—which supports denying a request to proceed anonymously." …
[N]ondisclosure [also] risks prejudicing Yale New Haven Health…. [T]he use of pseudonyms, even temporarily, would cause it prejudice because it would inhibit its ability to conduct a thorough investigation; diminish its ability to evaluate the merits of any arguments it may wish to raise as part of motion practice; and complicate its obligation to retain documents that may relate to this case….
