Jane Doe v. Related Companies LLP

Background

Jane Doe filed the action without a lawyer against Related Companies, LLP; Bridgeland West LLC; and several individuals. She alleged that, beginning in June 2020, she was harassed, bullied, taunted, and discriminated against by employees and residents, and that certain managers encouraged or tolerated misconduct and racial behavior. She sought reimbursement of rent, fees, and her security deposit, along with $150 million in damages.

The complaint invoked federal-question jurisdiction and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Eighth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In discussing the request to proceed anonymously, the court also addressed the Fair Housing Act (FHA), including its protections against housing discrimination and retaliation.

Anonymity Request

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 generally requires a complaint to name all parties. A plaintiff seeking to use a pseudonym must overcome the presumption that court proceedings and party identities are public.

The court denied Doe’s motion to proceed anonymously. It concluded that allegations of racial discrimination were not necessarily so sensitive and personal as to require anonymity, and that Doe’s general concern about retaliation based on the defendants’ wealth and power was too vague to overcome public access. The court noted that she could seek protection for specific sensitive information through redactions or requests to restrict access to particular documents. If she filed an amended complaint, the court required her to use her true name.

Section 1983 Claims

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that each defendant acted under color of state law, meaning through governmental authority or conduct sufficiently connected to the government. The court found that all defendants appeared to be private parties and that Doe did not allege that any defendant worked for a state or other government body. It therefore concluded that she had not stated a § 1983 claim. The court instructed that any amended complaint should not reassert constitutional claims under § 1983 unless Doe could allege facts showing that a defendant was a state actor.

The court also noted that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment applies to claims brought by convicted prisoners, but the order did not identify Doe as a convicted prisoner.

Title VII Claims

Title VII generally concerns discrimination in employment and requires an employer-employee relationship. The court found it unclear whether Doe was claiming an employment relationship with the defendant companies or was instead complaining about her rental of an apartment. Because her mailing address matched the address where the events occurred and she sought repayment of rent, the court assumed the claims arose from her apartment rental. Since she did not allege an employer-employee relationship, the court concluded that she failed to state a Title VII claim and advised that she should not include such claims in an amended complaint unless they concern an employer. The court also noted that administrative exhaustion is generally required for a Title VII employment-discrimination claim.

Fair Housing Act Claims

The FHA prohibits discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of renting a dwelling and also prohibits retaliation for exercising FHA rights. The court assumed for purposes of the order that the FHA covered Doe’s residence and explained that individuals who personally participate in housing discrimination may be liable.

The court concluded, however, that Doe’s statements that she had been discriminated against and that defendants had engaged in or tolerated racial behavior were legal conclusions without supporting facts. She did not describe what happened, identify whether the alleged conduct involved a housing transaction or retaliation, or explain what each defendant did or failed to do. The court therefore found the allegations insufficient to establish an FHA violation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Doe was representing herself and might be able to state a valid FHA claim by adding facts, the court granted her leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and had to include all facts and claims she wanted the court to consider. The court directed her to identify the relevant people, describe the events and each defendant’s conduct, state the approximate dates and locations, describe her injuries, and specify the relief sought.

The court denied the motion to proceed anonymously and granted leave to amend. It did not issue a summons at that time. The order warned that, if Doe failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the court would dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.