Southern Methodist University Association of Women Law Students v. Wynne & Jaffe
599 F.2d 707 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Plaintiffs in a Title VII discrimination lawsuit may not proceed anonymously under fictitious names based on fears of economic or social retaliation, as such fears do not constitute a compelling need to protect privacy in a sensitive or highly personal matter sufficient to override the general rule requiring disclosure of parties' identities.
Facts:
- The Southern Methodist University (SMU) Association of Women Law Students (Association) believed that two Dallas law firms, Wynne & Jaffe and Thompson, Knight, Simmons & Bullion, engaged in sex discrimination in their hiring practices for summer law clerks and associates.
- Four female lawyers, identified as Lawyers A, B, C, and D, sought to join the Association's lawsuits as individual plaintiffs.
- These four lawyers wished to proceed anonymously, using fictitious names, in the litigation.
- Lawyers A, B, and C submitted affidavits expressing their belief that they would face professional retaliation if their identities were revealed.
- The alleged retaliation included being 'eased out' of their current jobs, being assigned less desirable work, their firms losing business, and general harm to their legal careers.
Procedural Posture:
- The Southern Methodist University (SMU) Association of Women Law Students (Association) filed a Title VII complaint against the law firm Wynne & Jaffe in U.S. District Court.
- The Association later filed a separate, similar complaint against the law firm Thompson, Knight, Simmons & Bullion in the same court.
- The Association moved to amend its complaints in both actions to add Lawyers A, B, C, and D as individual party plaintiffs proceeding under fictitious names.
- Plaintiffs also moved for protective orders to prevent the disclosure of the identities of Lawyers A-D and the members of the Association.
- The district court granted leave to amend the complaints to add the new plaintiffs but ordered that the true identities of Lawyers A, B, C, and D must be disclosed in all pleadings.
- In a separate order, the district court indicated it would grant a defense motion to compel production of the Association's membership list.
- The plaintiffs (the Association and Lawyers A-D) appealed these pretrial disclosure orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Title VII or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit plaintiffs in a sex discrimination lawsuit to proceed anonymously under fictitious names to protect themselves from potential economic and social retaliation?
Opinions:
Majority - Ainsworth, Circuit Judge
No, neither Title VII nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit plaintiffs in this type of sex discrimination lawsuit to proceed anonymously. The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires complaints to name all parties, and there is a general principle that the identity of parties should not be concealed. While courts have carved out a narrow exception for cases involving 'matters of a sensitive and highly personal nature'—such as abortion, birth control, or homosexuality—this case does not fall into that category. The plaintiffs here are not required to disclose information of the utmost intimacy to prove their employment discrimination claims. Furthermore, previous cases allowing anonymity typically involved challenges to government action, whereas this suit is against private parties whose reputations are publicly challenged. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' fear of economic and social retaliation is a risk common to many Title VII plaintiffs and is not a sufficiently compelling reason to grant anonymity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the ability of plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases to proceed anonymously. By distinguishing Title VII claims from cases involving highly personal matters like reproductive rights, the court established that fear of professional or economic retaliation, a common concern for discrimination plaintiffs, is not an exceptional circumstance justifying anonymity. This precedent reinforces the public nature of litigation and the defendant's right to know its accuser, potentially discouraging some plaintiffs who fear reprisal from filing suit. The ruling solidifies the principle that the balancing test between a plaintiff's privacy and the public interest in open proceedings weighs heavily in favor of disclosure in the context of typical civil rights litigation against private defendants.
