Federal court in Pennsylvania denies transgender plaintiff's request to use chosen name in lawsuit

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a transgender plaintiff must proceed under her legal name rather than her chosen name in a pending lawsuit, rejecting arguments that doing so would cause serious and lasting harm to her mental health.

Case Background

In Davis v. Surefire Hospitality Group, LP, decided Wednesday by Judge Marilyn Horan of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the court addressed a dispute over how the plaintiff should be identified in court filings.

• The plaintiff has identified herself as Kimberly Davis in all filings.
• The defendant argues that the plaintiff's legal name is Matthew Grinage.
• The defendant provided documentation, including the plaintiff's employment application with the defendant's restaurant, where she used her legal name.
• The parties do not dispute that the plaintiff has not completed a formal legal name change process.

Plaintiff's Argument

In her brief, the plaintiff argued that use of her legal name causes her "distress, mental anguish, and harm." She further contended that if she cannot use her chosen name, she will suffer "serious and lasting effects to her mental health."

Court's Analysis

Judge Horan cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a), which states that "the title of the complaint must name all parties." The court noted that the rule's core intent is to assure "public access, transparency, and accountability in judicial proceedings."

Pseudonym Standard

While courts have previously allowed pseudonyms in "exceptional cases," the judge found that the plaintiff had not satisfied the requisite factors. Key findings included:

• Disclosure of the plaintiff's legal name would not cause "extraordinary harm" or reveal her transgender status in a way that creates "genuine danger."
• The plaintiff has "regularly used her legal name, including in her job application for employment with the Defendants."
• The plaintiff did not point to "any specific instance within her community, workplace, or the public where use of her legal name has exposed her to danger, harassment, or violence."
• The distress associated with using a legal name that differs from one's chosen name was characterized as "embarrassment or discomfort," which the Third Circuit has found insufficient to meet the standard.

Public Interest

The court emphasized that "the public's interest in knowing the identity of who is making claims is not diminished simply because Plaintiff prefers to use a different name." The judge also noted that the plaintiff's "identity, background, and specific circumstances are central to the claims at issue."

Legal Name Change Option

Judge Horan pointed out that Pennsylvania law provides a statutory mechanism to obtain a legal name change:

"Had Plaintiff accessed the appropriate and available legal process to obtain a legal name change, she would be entitled to use that legal name in these proceedings. Such a change, effectuated through court filings and official publications, provides public notice of the legal change of name. However, having not done so, Plaintiff must proceed under her legal name of Matthew Grinage."

Representation

Emily E. Mahler and Jennifer Lynn Deflitch of Margolis Edelstein represent the defendant.