Doe v. United Services Life Insurance Company – Case Brief
Doe v. United Services Life Insurance Company, 123 F.R.D. 437 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Facts: Doe (P) worked as a law clerk for a federal judge. During his final year of law school Doe sought to obtain a life insurance policy from United Services (D). United Services required Doe to sit for an interview and undergo a physical examination and blood test.
Doe alleged that United Services took extra precautions in issuing life insurance policies to homosexual males, and that United Services imposed these requirements on him because he was a single male living with another single male in Greenwich Village. Doe alleged that he was heterosexual.
Doe sued D alleging violations of New York insurance law and discrimination based on sex, marital status, and sexual orientation and D removed the case to federal court.
D challenged Doe’s right to maintain the suit under a pseudonym. D claimed that the action was related to D’s motive in charging Doe a higher premium and had no relation to unrelated sexual activities or homosexuality or susceptibility to AIDS. D also contended that allowing Doe to proceed without revealing his identity would injure it by denying it the ability to defend itself from publicity or to set the record straight with a full response.
Issue: Under what circumstances may a party proceed under a pseudonym?
Holding and Rule: A party may proceed under a pseudonym in a case in which there is a risk of social stigma.
The public has a legitimate interest in lawsuits and parties should proceed under their real names. Courts however allow the use of fictitious names to protect privacy in very private matters. The court held that cases in which a party risks public identification as a homosexual raise privacy concerns that have supported an exception to the general rule whereby parties proceed in their real names. Doe’s complaint alleged that D discriminated against him because it suspected he was homosexual. Doe was represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund which was widely recognized in defending the rights of gays. The court held that having Doe proceed as Doe would not disadvantage D because D already knew who he is.
Disposition: Judgment for Doe.