Warren v. PVH Corp.

Background

Cameron Warren filed this action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that, during his employment at the Tommy Hilfiger flagship store in Manhattan from October 2018 through March 2019, he had a consensual sexual encounter with a manager, Alex Contreras, at Contreras’s home. Warren alleged that Contreras took a compromising photograph of him without consent and showed it to other employees, leading to sexual harassment and race discrimination at work.

The court had previously dismissed Warren’s second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals dismissed Warren’s appeal as frivolous. In this order, the court considered only Warren’s motion to seal the docket.

Analysis

The court explained that both the common law and the First Amendment protect the public’s right to access court documents. That right is not absolute, but courts must weigh the public’s access against countervailing concerns, including privacy interests.

The court applied a three-step test. It first determined that the documents filed in the case were judicial documents—records relevant to the court’s work and useful in the legal process. It then found that those documents carried a presumption of public access. Finally, it concluded that the subject matter of Warren’s complaint and his privacy concerns were not sufficiently extraordinary to overcome that presumption.

The court also noted that Warren had filed multiple lawsuits arising from the same events and that related information appeared in other public records. Sealing this docket therefore would not prevent the information from remaining publicly available elsewhere.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Warren’s motion to seal the case and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Warren’s status allowing him to appeal without paying the required fees.