In the case L.R. v. Bd. of Ed. of Jennings School Dist., a ruling issued on Wednesday by Judge Joshua Divine of the Eastern District of Missouri:
L.R. and her mother, R.S., asserted that following an episode involving L.R.’s father at the end-of-day school pickup, personnel from Jennings School District placed L.R. in an out-of-school virtual learning track that they considered inferior to the regular classroom setting. Their filing contended that district staff did not brief L.R. on how her conduct justified the suspension, did not provide a schedule or consistent criteria for returning to in-person instruction, and did not offer her a hearing or an opportunity to appeal. They argued these deficiencies violated L.R.’s constitutional and statutory due‑process rights as well as her right to a free public education.
Since then, the parties have reached a settlement…. Regarding the settlement, the Court intends to approve it provided that the plaintiffs amend the complaint to reveal R.S.’s identity.
[R.S.] contends that disclosing her identity “will effectively disclose L.R.’s identity” as well. It is true that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally require anonymizing minors by using initials, but there is no similar requirement for parents. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3) (stating that filings must replace “the name of an individual known to be a minor” with “the minor’s initials”), with id. 10(a) (“The title of the complaint must name all the parties.”). Rather, Rule 10 draws a “strong presumption against allowing parties to use a pseudonym.” A party may overcome that presumption “only in those limited circumstances where [the] need for anonymity outweighs countervailing interests in full disclosure.”
This case is not one of those. R.S. and L.R. do not share a surname, and R.S. has not shown that third parties necessarily will infer L.R.’s identity from her mother.
Even if outsiders would discern L.R.’s identity, the mere fact that she was suspended from in-person classes after a vaguely described “incident” involving her father is not especially sensitive…. [O]ne factor to consider [in pseudonymity cases] is whether identifying a party “threatens to reveal information of a sensitive and highly personal nature” …. “[S]ome cases allow parents who sue on behalf of their minor children to proceed pseudonymously, at least when the case involves highly personal information about the children” …. This case does not involve, for example, sexual assault or coercion of a minor to use drugs.
If anything, there are weighty interests in full disclosure because knowing the identities of the people involved in this case could help third parties assess the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a school policy that has become a topic of public debate nationwide. The school district at issue has been covered in national media on the discipline matter. See, e.g., Carly Graf, The newest form of school discipline: Kicking kids out of class and into virtual learning, Washington State Standard (Aug. 7, 2023) (explaining how “[s]chool districts across the country, including in Missouri, have begun punishing students by forcing them into online classes”); id. (quoting the “superintendent of Jennings School District in Missouri”). R.S.’s own complaint engages the surrounding policy debate about virtual learning, including what critics say is a negative effect on students of certain races. Therefore, the Court will deny her motion for leave to proceed anonymously.
The settlement, by the way, provided that “[a]lthough the defendants are not required to admit liability, they must remove any mention of the suspension from L.R.’s records, promote her to 8th grade, pay her $40,000 dollars plus $20,000 to her attorneys, and make available a policy that “clearly enshrines due process protections for all students prior to any transfer to virtual learning.”
