Plaintiff Who Sued Over Alleged Discrimination at the Public Radio Marketplace Show Allowed Retroactive Pseudonymity
Many plaintiffs—especially plaintiffs suing their employers—worry that, if their lawsuit becomes publicly visible, future employers will be reluctant to hire them. Few people want to be viewed as a litigious employee. Nonetheless, courts generally reject claims of pseudonymity that are based on such concerns about reputational or economic harm, see pp. 1457-60 of The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation.
But courts aren’t entirely consistent of virtually anything related to pseudonymous litigation, and the same is true here. I’ve seen a few cases that allow pseudonymization, including retroactive pseudonymization, and even retroactive sealing at the behest of such plaintiffs. Here’s one in which the court offered at least some degree of explanation, from the L.A. Superior Court.
In 2023, plaintiff had sued Minnesota Public Radio, American Public Media, Marketplace host Kai Ryssdal, and former Marketplace general manager Deborah Clark, alleging that
she [had] engaged in legally protected activities including but not limited to reporting and opposing employment and hiring practices she reasonably believed were discriminatory including but not limited to discrimination based on an individual’s gender
and as a result was harassed and ultimately fired from Marketplace (in 2019). As best I can tell, the court filings offered few details on exactly what plaintiff did, though they “noted that Plaintiff was a female employee who opposed the unfair treatment against male employees by Defendants.”
The case apparently drew no public attention; and, a bit under a year later, the parties settled, so the case is now in the process of being dismissed. For whatever it’s worth, note that the plaintiff is now an editor in charge of certain kinds of investigations at a major American newspaper (and appears to have held that position when the lawsuit was filed).
After the notice of settlement, plaintiff asked the court to seal the record, or at least “to replace her name with a pseudonym.” (The defendants didn’t oppose the motion.) Judge Theresa Traber rejected the sealing request, on the grounds that it wasn’t “narrowly tailored,” precisely because the “proposed alternative … of proceeding under a pseudonym plainly demonstrates that a less-restrictive means exists to achieve the interest asserted by Plaintiff.” And Judge Traber conditionally granted the request for pseudonymity; here’s an excerpt from her Tentative Ruling last month (in the case that is now called Doe 1 v. Minnesota Public Radio);
In 2022, the Court of Appeal held that the overriding interest test, described in NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. 1999) with respect to sealing the record and codified in the Rules of Court discussed above, is equally app
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.