By Jeff Birren, Senior Writer
A Black man living in Washington, D.C. was fed up with the NFL. He felt “disgust, humiliation and anxiety” as the NFL discriminated against Black quarterbacks and coaching candidates, and “meted out” harsher punishment to Black players than it did to white players. He filed multiple claims, as John Doe, with a sealed motion to proceed anonymously. The District Court reviewed the motion and rejected Doe’s request to hide his identity. John Doe v. National Football League, D. D. C., Case No. 25-3115, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189026 *; 2025 WL 2732748 (9-25-2025).
Complaint
Doe sued the NFL on September 10, 2025. “He finally had enough.” The Complaint and Civil Cover Sheet combined are fifty-eight pages. He also filed motions “For Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis” and “To Proceed Under Pseudonym.” His allegations range from asserted violations of local and federal law, including the DC Human Rights Act, “the DC Consumer Protection Act, Title VII, the Sherman and Clayton Acts, as well as negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. … He wants declaratory and injunctive relief, plus $100 million in compensatory damages and $500 million in punitive damages.”
The Court’s Preliminary Statement
His motion was assigned to Judge James Boasberg. “[G]enerally complaints must identify the parties”. Fed. R. Civ. Pro(a). This reflects a “presumption in favor of disclosure” consistent with the tradition of open judicial proceedings.” In re Sealed Case, 931 F.3d 92, 96, (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Wash. Legal Found. v. U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 89 F.3d 897, 899, (D.C. Cir. 1996)). A party desiring anonymity bears “the weighty burden of both demonstrating a concrete need” for secrecy and to identify the consequences that might befall if forced to proceed under his or her actual name. In re Sealed Case, 971 F. 3d 324, 326 (D. C. Cir. 2020). This District uses a balancing test derived from Sealed Case, 931 F. 3d at 96. It is a five-part, “non-exhaustive” test (as “cleared up.”)
The Court’s Application of the Test
Factor 1:Whether “the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature.” The answer was no. Doe claimed otherwise, because “allegations of racial discrimination are necessarily sensitive and personal.” Doe did not claim, however, that the NFL had discriminated against him. Rather, his Complaint gave examples of alleged discrimination against NFL players, such as the Indianapolis Colts’ decision to start quarterback Daniel Jones over Black Anthony Richardson. Doe further alleged discriminatory practices related to the hiring of NFL head coaches, including the Washington Commanders selecting Dan Quinn instead of Black candidate Eric Bienemy. These examples are “all matters of public record, announced at press conferences and blasted out through ESPN alerts. They may be controversial. They are not sensitive and personal.”
Factor 2: Whether “identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mentalharm.” Sealed Case, 971 F.3d at 326. Doe argued that the “NFL commands enough money, power, and attention to hurt him.” He failed to give any reason why it would do so. He gave no indication that he was an NFL player, coach, or employee. “See Doe v. Lieberman, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 263266, 2020 WL 13260569, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2020) (substantiated risk of professional harm suffices for this factor).” Doe asserted that “fellow Black men Colin Kaepernick and Deshaun Watson were threatened when they ran afoul of the NFL.” It is mere conjecture that Doe would receive the same treatment that he alleges, and his “bare assertions that racial tensions show that any Black man who sues the NFL would face threats of violence are similarly speculative.” This “cuts against him.”
Factor 3: “The ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected.” Doe has three seventeen-year-old sons. They are each seeking college football scholarships. Identifying Doe might in turn identify his three sons, so this factor favors pseudonymity.Doe v. Blinken, No. 23-2997, ECF No. 3 (Mem. Op.) at 4, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 248590 (D.D.C., Oct. 13, 2023).
Factor 4: “Whether the action is against a governmental or private party.” Doe sued a private entity, not the government. This “factor goes against Plaintiff.” Doe v. Cabrera, 307 F.R.D. 1, 8 (D.D.C., 2014).
Factor 5: “The risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously.” Doe was “willing to disclose his name to defense counsel … so this factor favors pseudonymity.”
The Court’s Conclusion
Doe had not revealed any “sensitive and personal information about himself.” Moreover, he failed to demonstrate a “credible risk of retaliation” while suing a private defendant. Disclosing his name “might intrude on his minor children’s privacy and letting him proceed pseudonymously would not prejudice Defendant, those facts do not tip the balance.” The Court denied the motion. It gave Doe fourteen days to notify the Clerk if he intended to proceed using his real name.
Subsequent History
Doe accepted the Court’s invitation and refiled his Complaint against the NFL on October 15, 2025. It is now Roy Arnold v. National Football League. He again sought to “Proceed in forma pauperis.” That motion was granted by Judge Carl Nicholas on October 31, 2025. The case was subsequently assigned for all purposes to Judge Ana C. Reyes on November 3, 2025. A Summons was issued on November 5, 2025. That is where the case stood when this article was submitted. The case has thus gone through the hands of three District Court judges before the NFL has been served with the Complaint.
Next?
Next will likely be a motion to dismiss. To get into court “the plaintiff cannot be a mere bystander but instead must have a ‘personal stake’ in the dispute. TransUnion, LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S., 413, 423 (2012).” FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U.S. ____ (2024). This “helps ensure that courts decide litigants’ legal rights in specific cases, as Article III requires}”. The standing requirement “tends to assure that the legal questions presented to the court will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action”, citing Valley Forge, 454 U. S. 464, 472 (1982). “The fundamentals of standing are well-known and firmly rooted in American constitutional law.” FDA, 602 U.S. ___.
The “specific standing requirements constitute ‘an essential and unchanging part of the case-or controversy requirement of Article III.’” The “two key questions in most standing disputes are injury in fact and causation.” An “injury must be ‘concrete,’ meaning that it must be real and not abstract. See TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 424. The injury also must be particularized; the injury must affect ‘the plaintiff in a personal and individual way’ and not be a generalized grievance. Lujan, v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560, n. 1 (1991). Moreover, the injury must be actual or imminent, not speculative.”
Doe/Arnold is not competing with the NFL. He is not selling products or services to the NFL. Claims related to the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§1 et. seq and the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §12-27, relate to restrictions in interstate commerce, not the beliefs of football fans. Furthermore, the Clayton Act does not apply to labor disputes.
Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964 §701, (codified as 42 U.S.C. §2000e (1982)), bars discrimination based on a number of factors, including race, but it only applies to those that have been discriminated against in violation of the statute. Doe /Arnold was not employed by the NFL nor was he denied employment based on his race. His asserted claims are on behalf of others.
The “DC Consumer Protection Act”, D.C, Code §28-3901, et. seq. (1981) is designed to protect consumers from false claims related to products. Hiring Dan Quinn instead of Eric Bienemy as head coach of a team based in Maryland does not seem to relate to the purchase of products in the District of Columbia. Furthermore, if Mr. Bienemy believed that he had a valid claim, his contract required him to pursue it in arbitration against the Commanders, his former employer.
Doe/Arnold seeks to pursue his discrimination claims on behalf of coaches, but that class action is already pending in federal court, Brian Flores as Class Representative v. NFL et al. The Second Circuit recently denied the NFL’s petition for rehearing en banc. Order, Case No. 23-1185-cv, (10-6-2025).
The “DC Human Rights Act”, DC Code §2-1402.11(2006), as amended, bars racial discrimination in employment. It states in part: “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice to do any of the following acts, wholly or partially for a discriminatory reason based upon the actual or perceived: race, color, religion, national origin …” Doe/Arnold is asserting it on behalf of others, and in the case of the Indianapolis quarterbacks, an act that took place over five hundred miles from the District of Columbia. If Anthony Richardson had a claim, the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement required him to file a non-injury grievance within fifty days of the event giving rise to the claim. NFL-NFLPA CBA Article 43, Section 2. No press reports suggest that he did so.
It is highly improbable that the Commanders had Doe/Arnold in mind when Quinn was hired, or that there was intent to inflict emotional distress upon him when it did so. As to his negligence claim, teams routinely make mistakes when hiring wrong coaches. Tracking the hirings and firings of teams proves that some teams seem to switch coaches every other year. None of that is directed at Doe/Arnold. If this was a valid claim, fans could routinely sue teams throughout the country, and that was before gambling proposition bets became intertwined with professional sports.
Editorial
A motion to dismiss seems to be in the offing. Decisions from the United States Supreme Court are unlikely to be ignored by the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Doe/Arnold may be angry, but he will likely find that some of his claims will lack U.S. Constitution Article III standing. In the meantime, virtually all readers would gladly exchange pay checks with DeShaun Watson.
