One more month until we sickos can stop worrying about the midterms, and can start worrying about what really matters: The 90th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature
Cora Neas, ghost reporter
@corabora.bsky.social
1.2K followers 549 following 1.6K posts
Austin-based reporter covering Texas laws, courts and queer life, and their intersection. Currently a digital reporter for @kxan.com. She/They NB Trans Fem🏳️⚧ | Mom of 1 human and 2 cats | Forever DM & TT wargamer Portfolio: muckrack.com/cora-neas/
![Plaintiff asserts that public exposure of her identity would inflict severe embarrassment, humiliation, and social stigmatization, consequences historically associated with victims of workplace sexual harassment. The sensitive nature of the allegations, committed while plaintiff was a minor and under the authority of her supervisors, clearly implicates “matters of the utmost intimacy.” This Court is persuaded that the allegations, including repeated sexualized battery and harassment endured from adolescence into adulthood, present circumstances where the plaintiff’s privacy interests are substantial.
Defendants rely upon Doe v Kidd, (19 Misc 3d 782 [Sup Ct New York County 2008]), to argue that embarrassment alone is insufficient. Yet that case involved allegations of inappropriate contact by a celebrity in a civil context, without the element of protracted workplace harassment of a vulnerable minor employee. Here, the risk of enduring stigma is exacerbated by the plaintiff’s young age at the inception of the misconduct and the imbalance of power inherent in the employer/employee relationship.
Moreover, plaintiff’s request does not unduly impair the public’s right to access judicial records. The substance of the allegations, the identities of defendants, and the claims asserted remain in full public view. Only plaintiff’s true name would be shielded, a measure far less restrictive than sealing proceedings or closing the courtroom. As noted in Anonymous v Anonymous, pseudonymity preserves the equilibrium between transparency and protection of vulnerable parties.
Defendants suffer no cognizable prejudice, as plaintiff’s identity has been disclosed to their counsel. They remain fully capable of investigating and defending against the claims through ordinary discovery channels. Indeed, as recognized in E.K. v New York Hosp. Cornell Med. Ctr., when identity is known to adversaries, pseudonymity merely guards against unnecessary public dissemination.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:q6h6j7beu2xjiy2ozlitymkd/bafkreihqq7pq2ifhi66esqmiw266siuldyucs3fgckcdkxl4ubrskpzg4q)
