Doe v. Fashion Institute of Technology

Background

Jane Doe filed this action against Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT) and initially received permission to proceed anonymously. After FIT appeared, the court denied her renewed request to keep her identity confidential. The court later denied reconsideration of that decision. Jane Doe filed an appeal from the reconsideration decision and then moved to stay, or pause, the case while that appeal was pending.

Stay standard

The court applied four factors for deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal: whether the applicant is likely to succeed, whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm without a stay, whether a stay would substantially injure other interested parties, and where the public interest lies. The court treated likelihood of success as especially important and concluded that Jane Doe had not shown that her appeal had more than a negligible chance of success. Because that factor was lacking, the court did not consider the remaining stay factors.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that an appellate court reviews a decision about proceeding under a pseudonym for abuse of discretion, a deferential standard. It rejected Jane Doe’s three arguments for likely success.

First, Jane Doe argued that the court had relied on an incorrect statement that anti-Zionist stickers had been placed inside FIT buildings beginning in early February 2023, rather than early February 2025. The court called this a typographical error and said it did not affect the earlier decision because that decision did not depend on how long the stickers had been present.

Second, Jane Doe argued that the court had underestimated the danger created by violent anti-Zionist threats on campus. The court said it had taken those concerns seriously and had previously found that some risk of harm from third parties weighed slightly in favor of anonymity. But it concluded that the risk was reduced because many alleged threats were directed at Zionists generally, rather than at Jane Doe personally or at a smaller group of Zionists at FIT. The court also noted that Jane Doe had already been identified as a Zionist after her picture was posted on social media when she refused to accept a flier. Thus, the court reasoned, public identification as the particular student who filed the lawsuit would not create the same kind of additional harm that Jane Doe claimed.

Third, Jane Doe argued that anonymity should have been allowed because FIT initially did not oppose her request. The court said that the plaintiff’s interest in anonymity must be balanced against the public interest in disclosure and any prejudice to the defendant. It found that the public interest alone provided sufficient reason to reject anonymity, given the national importance of alleged unequal treatment of Jewish students at colleges and the risk that keeping only one party’s identity secret could hinder accurate fact-finding and fair adjudication. The court also noted that FIT later described possible prejudice involving discovery, witnesses, trial, and jury perceptions.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan denied the motion for a stay pending the interlocutory appeal. The court denied Jane Doe’s request for oral argument as moot. It ordered Jane Doe to file an amended complaint under her true name within seven days of the opinion and order. If she does not file it by that deadline, and the deadline is not extended, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions at Docket Numbers 49 and 54.