Pennsylvania federal court: Transgender plaintiff must sue under legal name

A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a plaintiff must proceed under her legal name rather than her chosen name, 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 plaintiff identified herself as Kimberly Davis in all court filings. The defendant, however, argued that the plaintiff's legal name is Matthew Grinage and that she therefore failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a).

The defendant provided documentation, including the plaintiff's employment application with the defendant's restaurant, in which she used her legal name, Matthew Grinage. 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," and that failing to use her chosen name would result in "serious and lasting effects to her mental health."

Court's Reasoning

Judge Horan cited Rule 10, which states that "the title of the complaint must name all parties," noting that the rule's core intent is to "assure public access, transparency, and accountability in judicial proceedings." The court emphasized that:

• Following historical practices of publicness, proper access to litigants' names is important
• Rule 10, along with Rule 17, reinforces that court proceedings must remain open and accessible to the public
• The rules demand clarity in how parties are identified and ensure the public record accurately reflects the identity of who is before the court and why

While courts have previously allowed the use of a pseudonym in "exceptional cases," the court found that the plaintiff had not satisfied the requisite factors to proceed by pseudonym or use her chosen name.

Key Findings

The court determined that:

• Disclosure of the plaintiff's legal name would not cause extraordinary harm or reveal her transgender status in a way that creates genuine danger, as the plaintiff has regularly used her legal name, including in her job application 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 is "more properly characterized as embarrassment or discomfort," which the Third Circuit has found insufficient to meet the standard
• Without particularized allegations, the plaintiff's request reflects "a personal preference, rather than a reasonable fear or severe harm"
• The plaintiff's legal name has been publicly used many times, and because her identity has not been confidential in the past, there is no basis to permit use of her chosen name in present filings

Legal Name Change Process

The court noted that Pennsylvania law provides a statutory mechanism to obtain a legal name change. Had the plaintiff accessed this process, she would be entitled to use that legal name in proceedings. Such a change, effectuated through court filings and official publications, provides public notice of the legal change of name.

"While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's preference to use her chosen name rather than her legal name," Judge Horan wrote, "such preference does not supersede the interest of the public in knowing the true identity of litigants in cases such as this."

Representation

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