Being an "Immigrant Professional" Doesn't Cut in Favor of Pseudonymity

From Thursday's decision by Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern in Doe v. Brooks Automation US LLC:

Doe alleges that, while working at Brooks, she "experienc[ed] targeted harassment and discrimination based on her gender, national origin, and physical disability[.]" Specifically, she asserts Title VII and ADA claims based on alleged gender discrimination in Brooks's hiring practices, retaliatory reassignment of her work responsibilities, verbal harassment, exclusion from a group photo due to her disability, and reputational harassment and defamation. Doe alleges that she "was coerced into accepting the terms" of a "garden leave" "to avoid forfeiting her annual bonus and risking her work visa status." ["Garden leave" appears to refer to paid leave preceding being dismissed. -EV] She further alleges that Brooks "delayed [her] green card process and ultimately halted it in retaliation for [Doe's] engagement in [ ] activities" protected by federal law. Doe states that Brooks "forced termination" of her employment and that her manager and another employee continued to defame her after her employment with Brooks ended….

Doe argues that the Court should grant her permission to proceed under a pseudonym because her complaint includes "serious allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and defamation by her former employer" and "[p]ublicly disclosing [her] identity could expose her to further retaliation by [Brooks] or its associates, negatively impacting her future employment opportunities and professional reputation." She states that she "has already suffered significant reputational harm and emotional distress due to [Brooks's] retaliatory actions, and" argues that "public disclosure of her identity in this lawsuit may exacerbate these harms" by "exposing her to additional scrutiny and compromising her standing within her industry." Doe argues that, "[a]s an immigrant professional, [she] is particularly vulnerable to potential repercussions[.]"

Doe relies on the Ninth Circuit's opinion in Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp. (9th Cir. 2000), for the proposition "that anonymity is warranted when plaintiffs face a risk of retaliation or harm, particularly for vulnerable groups such as immigrants." But Doe's reliance on Advanced Textile Corp. is misplaced. In that case, the Ninth Circuit applied a different pseudonymity standard and emphasized that the Fair Labor Standard Act plaintiffs, who were "nonresident foreign workers" in Saipan, had introduced evidence supporting their fears of "extraordinary retaliation, such as deportation, arrest, and imprisonment[.]"

Doe has not argued that she fears similarly extraordinary retaliation or harm here, nor has she introduced evidence to support a finding that such retaliation or harm is likely…. "[W]hen a plaintiff seeks to proceed under a pseudonym, he or she must demonstrate a risk of actual harm; in other words, generalized fear based on statistics without more is insufficient." … Doe has not shown that this is an exceptional case in which her privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings. Doe's motion for leave to proceed using a pseudonym will therefore be denied.

For more on the law of pseudonymous litigation, see here.

Michael S. Moschel, Ethan D. Balsam, and Morgan Kinney (Littler Mendelson P.C.) represent defendant.