John Doe, a former University of Southern Indiana student who was suspended for three semesters in 2021 after being found responsible for sexual assault in a Title IX proceeding, sued the university claiming sex discrimination and due process violations. The university's hearing panel found by a preponderance of evidence that Doe had committed 'Rape and Forcible Fondling' after determining that his accuser's account was more credible than his because it had been 'consistent over time' while Doe's account had changed.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt's denial of Doe's request to proceed under a pseudonym, applying the court's established standard requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate substantial risk of physical harm or retaliation beyond legitimate reactions to court-determined facts. As Judge Hamilton explained, 'We have declined to allow use of pseudonyms to avoid embarrassment,' and the court found no error in the district court's evaluation that Doe failed to meet this threshold.
The appeals court rejected Doe's argument that he faced physical danger based on 2021 social media threats against him and his mother, with Hamilton noting that 'the messages were several years old, that plaintiff's true identity was known to some of those posting, that no harm had come plaintiff in the intervening years, and that there was no other evidence indicating any intent to follow through on those threats years later.'
The case reached the Seventh Circuit after Magistrate Judge Wildman initially ordered Doe to litigate under his real name, which District Judge Pratt upheld over Doe's objection in July 2024. The district court stayed its order pending appeal, allowing briefing to proceed under the pseudonym. Doe had filed three consolidated appeals challenging various district court decisions, including the denial of a preliminary injunction that the Seventh Circuit had already affirmed in 2022.
Doe argued the court should broaden its pseudonym standard to protect mental health, pointing to evidence he had contemplated suicide during the proceedings and was helped by another student who sought assistance from university officials. The court acknowledged this was 'a stark reminder that the issue here involves more than embarrassment' and that 'Title IX proceedings and the events that lead to them can have devastating consequences.' However, Judge Hamilton wrote that 'the lines between embarrassment, stress, and degrees of mental illness are not sharp,' and declined to expand protections for mental health concerns.
The panel explicitly rejected both parties' attempts to tie the pseudonym decision to the merits of their underlying dispute, despite Doe's argument that the university's alleged concealment of evidence forced him into federal court and defendants' counter-argument that someone found responsible for sexual assault should not receive greater anonymity protections than victims. 'We are reluctant to adopt a test for pseudonyms that would depend on or even consider the merits of a party's claims or defenses,' Hamilton wrote, noting such an approach would be 'incongruous, if not downright self-contradictory' given that pseudonym decisions must resolve issues 'completely separate from the merits of the action.'
Following the pattern established in recent Title IX cases, the court gave Doe until May 13, 2026, to choose between dismissing his appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42 to avoid public disclosure of his name or proceeding to merits decisions that would use his real identity. The court will keep all three consolidated appeals under advisement pending Doe's decision, mirroring the approach taken in the circuit's recent Indiana University and Loyola Chicago Title IX pseudonym cases.