From Doe v. Little Miami School Dist., decided Thursday by Judge Matthew McFarland (S.D. Ohio):
Plaintiff is a teacher for Defendant Little Miami School District. For the past four years, Plaintiff has displayed a flag in his classroom that reads “Hate Has No Home Here” and bears several icons, including a rainbow Pride flag and transgender Pride flag. In January 2025, the Ohio Assembly passed H.B. 8, the Ohio Parent’s Bill of Rights …. The statute provides parents the opportunity to review any instructional materials that include sexuality content which is defined as “any oral or written instruction, presentation, image, or description of sexual concepts or gender ideology, provided in a classroom setting.” In October 2025, the Little Miami School Board passed a policy that adopted the statute.
In February 2026, Defendant David Wallace, president of the School Board, requested that Plaintiff remove his flag, but the principal stated that he would not order Plaintiff to remove it. Plaintiff then drafted an email defending the flag, and the Superintendent of Little Miami School District supported Plaintiff. On February 25, 2026, the School Board voted 4-1 in favor of the flag’s removal, pursuant to H.B. 8 and the accompanying district policy. Plaintiff complied with this vote and removed the flag. …
Plaintiff now … seek[s] declaratory judgment that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights in ordering the flag’s removal.
The court held plaintiff couldn’t proceed pseudonymously:
Generally, “the complaint must name all the parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). Therefore, litigating under a pseudonym is disfavored. But, a court may permit a party to proceed pseudonymously where “privacy interests substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings.” …
Plaintiff alleges that revealing his identity could “invite further reaction within the community and could present a very real risk of harassment and threats.” … Plaintiff asserts here that his personal information has already been nonconsensually published online, or “doxed,” which he characterizes as a form of harassment. Defendants, though, point out that Plaintiff’s own argument cuts against his Motion, because “[a]nonymity at this stage would […] amount to a legal fiction,” as his identity is “already in the public domain.” In fact, Plaintiff acknowledges that these online publications likely obtained his personal information and communications with the school about the flag “pursuant to a public records request.”
The Court therefore agrees with Defendants. Plaintiff’s identity has already been publicly revealed, whether or not he consented to such disclosure…. “A plaintiff’s interest in anonymity is weakened where anonymity has already been compromised.” … Moreover, he claims that his identity and communications are subject to public records requests. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff fears his identity being involved in public discourse, proceeding under a pseudonym here will not prevent, and in fact has not prevented, the public from discovering his identity.
Furthermore, beyond instances of Plaintiff’s name, job title, and photograph being published, Plaintiff has not pointed to any credible threat of harassment or danger that he faced from this disclosure or could face if his name is used in these proceedings. Risk of embarrassment alone is not enough to warrant use of a pseudonym….
The post title is adapted from Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG (2d Cir. 2004).
The post "Once the [Rainbow Flag] Cat Is out of the Bag, the Ball Game Is Over" appeared first on Reason.com.
