By Charles Toutant, From New Jersey Law Journal

A Princeton University student who claims the school failed to accommodate his disability after he attempted suicide may not bring his lawsuit anonymously, a federal judge in Newark has ruled.

The student, identified in court documents as W.P., argued that he should be allowed to remain anonymous because going public would embarrass him and aggravate his condition, and because disclosure would chill the rights of others suffering mental illness to seek redress for discrimination. But U.S. Magistrate Judge Tonianne Bongiovanni of the District of New Jersey said W.P. failed to overcome the presumption that court proceedings should be public.

W.P. “is publicly accusing Princeton University and several named individual defendants of serious wrongdoing impugning their character, integrity and reputation. The court agrees with defendants that it would be fundamentally unfair to allow plaintiff to accuse defendants of serious wrongdoing anonymously while forcing defendants to defend themselves publicly,” Bongiovanni ruled May 29 in W.P. v. Princeton University.

The student filed the suit pro se in March 2014, naming the university and seven individual administrators as defendants. He claims he was wrongly forced to withdraw from school after taking an overdose of antidepressant pills. He was readmitted after taking a year off and complying with Princeton’s dictates, including attendance at psychotherapy sessions and completion of a psychological evaluation.

The suit claims Princeton denied the student a reasonable accommodation of his disability and imposed conditions on his return that were more onerous than for students who leave due to physical illness.

Although the student has so far kept his identity under wraps, the case has been at the center of a nationwide debate over colleges’ treatment of students with mental illness.

W.P. moved on Oct. 20, 2014, for an order granting him leave to proceed anonymously, and on Oct. 30, Princeton filed a memorandum of opposition to the motion. On Dec. 12, Princeton’s lawyer wrote to the judge in the case to argue that W.P.’s request to remain anonymous was undermined by his statements in a Dec. 1 New Yorker article in which W.P. said he felt “a little hunted” among Princeton administrators since returning to campus after his suicide attempt.

W.P. argued that his desire to keep his real name confidential was based in part on prior life experiences, where he has suffered embarrassment when others learned he has been diagnosed with mental illness. He also cited a public interest in ensuring that cases such as his are litigated, and said remaining anonymous would not keep the public from following the proceedings.

Princeton argued that plaintiffs can bring suits anonymously only in exceptional cases, and a mere showing that he would suffer embarrassment or anxiety was not enough to allow him to remain anonymous. Rather, Princeton claimed, the plaintiff must make a showing that he fears severe harm, and that such a fear is reasonable. Princeton also dismissed the plaintiff’s argument about a stigma around mental illness, citing statistics holding that nearly half the population would meet the criteria for a mental illness at some time.

Bongiovanni found that W.P.’s avowed efforts to keep his mental illness confidential were mitigated by his admission that he revealed his condition to an unstated number of “close friends.”

In addition, he failed to provide examples or details of any instances when he suffered embarrassment or anxiety when others learned about his mental illness, the judge said. And the record does not contain any information about the severity of his condition or the likelihood that disclosure would aggravate that condition, Bongiovanni said. And what’s more, the court has a mechanism for protecting sensitive medical information from public access by seeking its redaction from court documents.

Bongiovanni also said the public interest in ensuring that such cases as W.P.’s are adjudicated, and that the rights of mental illness sufferers are represented fairly, must be balanced against the presumption of openness in judicial proceedings.

“There is nothing to support the proposition that requiring plaintiff to disclose his name will deter other similarly situated plaintiffs from suing in the future,” Bongiovanni said. “Here, plaintiff voluntarily chose to pursue action through the public judicial system, and therefore, must be willing to face the consequences of having a public proceeding.”

W.P. did not respond to a reporter’s message sent to an email address listed in court documents.

William Maderer of Saiber in Florham Park, representing Princeton and the individual defendants, said “the university is very gratified by the court’s opinion and thinks she got it right.”

He said a pending defense motion to dismiss the case, which is fully briefed, is the next order of business in the case. But the case “can’t proceed” without the plaintiff revealing his identity, Maderer said, adding that it’s “incumbent on the plaintiff” to refile a complaint “with his real identity,” Maderer said.

IMAGE: Princeton University

For more on this story go to: http://www.njlawjournal.com/id=1202728009027/Princeton-Student-Must-Reveal-Identity-in-Disability-Suit#ixzz3buoIPyvZ