No Pseudonymity for Plaintiff Claiming Bar Exam "Has a Disparate Impact on African Americans"

From Thursday’s decision by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers in Doe v. Ohio Supreme Court:

Plaintiff alleges that the Universal Bar Examination score required by Defendant Ohio Board of Bar Examiners has a disparate impact on African Americans; Defendants’  conduct exhibits a pattern, or practice of intentional discrimination, or a deliberate indifference to the rights of African American Bar Candidates as well as unequal treatment”; Defendant Supreme Court of Ohio’s licensing standards for attorneys are not equally applied; Defendants’ scoring of Plaintiff’s three bar exams was racially discriminatory; Defendant Supreme Court of Ohio’s adoption of “Rule I Section 1(E) of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio” violates the Fourteenth Amendment; Defendant Supreme Court of Ohio permitted “its employees to participate in a pattern, or practice of intentional discrimination, or allowed its employees” to violate the Fourteenth Amendment and federal and state laws; and Defendants behavior regarding Rule I Section 1(E) negligently caused Plaintiff emotional distress….

Plaintiff argues [in support of her request to proceed pseudonymously] that her “suit challenge [sic] governmental activity, [her] claim involves sensitive topics including Bar licensing failures, racial discrimination and Civil Rights violations, and an affirmative ruling does not force the Defendants to proceed with insufficient information to present their arguments against Plaintiff’s claim.” Plaintiff further asserts that public announcement of her multiple unsuccessful attempts to pass the bar exam “may place Plaintiff at risk of failing to obtain future employment, and it may affect Plaintiff’s ability to attract future clients ….”

Plaintiff provides nothing more than conclusory statements about her generalized fears of embarrassment, inconvenience, unfairness, humiliation, and failing to obtain employment and attract clients. As Defendants note, “[u]nsubstantiated fears of speculative harm are insufficient to outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.” … The Court also notes Plaintiff’s failure to cite a single case wherein a litigant was permitted to proceed anonymously under similar circumstances and her failure to distinguish her situation from the multitude of similar cases in which current and former law students litigate under their own names….

The post No Pseudonymity for Plaintiff Claiming Bar Exam “Has a Disparate Impact on African Americans” appeared first on Reason.com.