From Koe v. Univ. Hospitals Health Systems, Inc.decided yesterday by the Sixth Circuit (Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, Judge Alan Norris and Judge Eugene Siler):
Koe was a resident physician at Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center from June 2019 until he was discharged in April 2021, apparently because he lost his practicing privileges at the Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Koe claimed, however, that he was fired because he objected to having to attend unspecified mental health counseling through the hospital’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP)…. Koe alleged … that the hospital’s use of the EAP in this manner was abusive and filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about this practice. Koe also complained to his supervisors that one of his coworkers subjected him to a hostile work environment by questioning him about his family’s medical history….
The court upheld the district court’s ruling that Koe had no right to proceed under a pseudonym:
A complaint usually must state the names of all parties. A district court may, however, allow a party to proceed anonymously after considering, among other factors, whether the case calls into question government activity, whether the party would be forced to disclose “highly confidential information.” or “an intent to violate the law.” ,” and if the party is a child.
“Examples of areas in which courts have permitted the use of pseudonyms include cases involving ‘abortion, birth control, transsexuality, mental illness, social rights of illegitimate children, AIDS, and homosexuality.’” “But the fact that a case involves a medical matter is not a sufficient reason to allow the use of a fictitious name, even though many people are understandably private about their health problems.” The key question is whether the party’s interest in privacy outweighs the presumption in favor of open judicial proceedings….
In this case, Koe said only that his lawsuit would require him to reveal undescribed intimate information that emerged from his counseling sessions. But Koe did not specify how he would be harmed by disclosure of his identity. And Koe could have been protected from disclosure of private or embarrassing information revealed during his counseling sessions by filing the documents under seal.
Koe’s case is therefore materially indistinguishable from that one Doe vs. Carson (6th Circle 2020). Like Koe in this case, so is the plaintiff Carson she claimed she had been discriminated against because of a mental disability and wanted to proceed under a pseudonym to avoid the stigma associated with mental illness. “But Doe failed to identify any exceptional circumstances that distinguish her case from other cases brought by plaintiffs claiming disability discrimination who suffer from mental illness.” Furthermore, Doe did not identify “any specific harm resulting from disclosure of her identity.” We therefore concluded that the district court did not abuse her discretion in denying appellant permission to proceed anonymously….