at Koe v. Univ. Hospital Health Systems, Inc.Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit (Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, Judge Alan Norris, and Judge Eugene Siler) decided:
Koe was a resident at Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center from June 2019 until his discharge in April 2021. Ostensibly because she lost her privileges to practice at the Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center. But Koh claimed she was fired because she refused to participate in unspecified mental health counseling through the hospital's Employee Assistance Program (EAP)… Koe claimed it was offensive for the hospital to use EAPs in this way, and she filed complaints about the practice with the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Koe also complained to his supervisor that one of his co-workers exposed him to a hostile work environment by asking about his family's medical history…
The court upheld the district court's ruling that Koe did not have standing to sue under an assumed name.
The complaint must generally name all parties. But district courts can allow the parties to proceed anonymously after considering things like whether the case challenges government action and whether the parties must disclose “maximum intimate information” or “intent to violate the law.” ,” and whether the parties are children.
“Examples of areas where courts have permitted pseudonyms include cases involving ‘abortion, contraception, gender reassignment, mental illness, illegitimacy rights, AIDS, and homosexuality.’” “But the fact that the case involved a medical problem is reason enough to allow the use of fictitious names, even though many people understandably keep their medical problems secret.” The key inquiry is whether the parties’ interest in privacy outweighs the presumption in favor of an open judicial process…
In this case, Koe argued that his lawsuit forced him to disclose confidential information that was not described in the counseling sessions. However, Koh did not specify what damage the disclosure of her identity would cause. And she could have protected Ms. Goh by keeping private or embarrassing information she disclosed during her counseling process under seal.
Koe's case is therefore practically indistinguishable from: Doe vs. Carson (June 2020). Like Koe in this case, the plaintiff carson He claimed that he had been discriminated against because of his mental disability and that he wanted to proceed under a pseudonym to avoid the stigma associated with mental illness. “However, Doe failed to identify any exceptional circumstances that distinguish her case from other cases brought by plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination based on mental illness.” Moreover, Mr. Do did not mention “specific damage arising from the disclosure of identity.” Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff permission to proceed anonymously.