Developments in case law have prompted women’s soccer players’ anonymity to be revisited. Photo by Jada Gangazha.
AIDAN GREGG | MANAGING EDITOR | agregg1@butler.edu
CALEB DENORME | SPORTS EDITOR | cdenorme@butler.edu
Content warning: explicit references to sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual assault and grooming.
In response to the ongoing sex abuse case filed by four former women’s soccer players, Butler University seeks to remove the athletes’ anonymity. Since the initial filing of the suit in July 2023, the players have proceeded under the pseudonyms Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3. Jane Doe 4 filed suit in August 2023, also using a pseudonym.
The athletes allege sexual abuse, stalking and grooming by former assistant athletic trainer Michael Howell. They further allege negligence by Butler University and Ralph Reiff, the senior associate athletic director for student-athlete health, performance and well-being.
However, Butler University and Reiff’s counsel argue that the prior ruling should be revisited because of recent developments in case law. New guidance states that parties seeking pseudonyms must prove “exceptional circumstances” specifically that they “[are] a minor, [are] at risk of physical harm or [face] improper retaliation (that is, private responses unjustified by the facts as determined in court).” The university and Reiff allege that the women’s soccer players have failed to prove that they meet these criteria and therefore must attend a public hearing to evaluate the use of pseudonyms.
The plaintiffs have held that revealing their identities to the public would cause further mental harm and would deter others from reporting sexual assault. Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that public access to information is maintained while protecting players’ identities because court proceedings and case records remain public despite the players’ use of pseudonyms. A previous ruling affirmed the athletes’ use of pseudonyms.
Women’s soccer players maintain need for pseudonyms
The plaintiffs recently maintained their need to continue proceeding under pseudonyms. All four players have been proceeding under Jane Does 1-4 since the case was filed in July 2023, citing that a judge can “permit pseudonymous litigation when the balance of harm justifies it.”
The women’s soccer players and their legal teams assert there is legal precedent to allow them to continue under the pseudonyms. It is up to the court to determine if there is a “substantial risk of harm — either physical harm or retaliation by third parties, beyond the reaction legitimately attached to the truth to events as determined in court.” If the court deems so, the athletes will be allowed anonymity.
The plaintiffs argue Howell’s abuse caused both physical and emotional harm. Should anonymity not be granted, the plaintiffs fear they will go through “embarrassment, public scrutiny, invasion of privacy, and social stigmatization, all of which place them at risk of further emotional and psychological suffering and injury.”
The women assert they would like to keep anonymity so they are known for their professional accomplishments, rather than solely being stigmatized as survivors of Howell’s abuse. If their names were to be released their information would be “easily accessible and identifiable through the Internet and follow them throughout their personal and professional lives.”
At the pseudonym hearing on Oct. 28, the women’s soccer players are expected to testify about their fears regarding their career aspirations in medicine should their identities be revealed. Doe 1 is expected to speak about an exchange in which co-head coach Tari St. John told her she “was instructed not to write a letter of recommendation for [Doe 1’s] medical school applications” after Doe 1 filed the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs also argue that using public identifiers during sexual misconduct litigation would be improper. The information shared by the plaintiffs is highly sensitive, where the release of their names could subject these women to “risk of public disapproval, harassment, or bodily harm.”
The women’s legal teams also argue that releasing the players’ names would deter other victims of sexual assault from “seeking judicial relief.” The plaintiffs have also been contacted by other survivors of Howell’s abuse, who shared their “reluctance to come forward because of potential exposure of their identities.”
Defendants Butler and Reiff do not contest the harm the women underwent at the hands of Howell, citing the Title IX panel which said “[t]he harm to [Ms. Doe] was severe and the effects resulting therefrom are likely to be profound and lasting.” Butler University even commended the women for their courage when they came forward with their allegations. The plaintiffs pointed out that if the defense is admitting to the severity of these abuses by Howell, the women should be allowed to continue under pseudonyms.
Butler University, Reiff argue for removal of pseudonyms
The university argues that the athletes have failed to prove that they demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required for pseudonymity. They claim that “plaintiffs’ claims are not special,” because there are “tens of thousands of other plaintiffs who filed personal injury suits under federal diversity jurisdiction in the past year” without pseudonyms.
Federal diversity jurisdiction allows for plaintiffs to sue defendants who do not live in the same state if the amount of money at stake exceeds $75,000. Personal injury encompasses any injury to a person’s body, emotions or reputation. Sexual assault claims fall under personal injury.
The plaintiffs are not minors, nor were they at the time of the alleged abuse. Additionally, the pseudonym guidelines only allow exceptions for “risk of physical harm” and not mental harm. The defense argues that the plaintiffs’ fears of “embarrassment, public scrutiny, invasion of privacy and social stigmatization” which place them at risk for mental harm are irrelevant because the plaintiffs have not proven that they may face further physical harm.
Regarding the retaliation criterion, the university claims that Michael Howell knows the identities of the women’s soccer players, so the use of pseudonyms would not prevent possible retaliation from him. Furthermore, they claim that legal standards do not encompass reputational harm or public scrutiny and these would not be considered a form of retaliation.
The defense further alleges that the athletes have used their pseudonyms to defend themselves and make defamatory statements about Reiff. These alleged defamatory statements were made by the plaintiffs regarding the revelation that Reiff worked with serial rapist and former USA gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar. The plaintiffs claim that Reiff had “direct knowledge of and role in the most notorious sex abuse scandal of female athletes in history,” concerning Nassar’s sexual abuse of hundreds of female athletes.
For a statement to be considered defamation it must be proven false, be communicated to a third party, result from fault — including negligence — and cause reputational harm to the statement’s target.
Butler University and Reiff allege that the women’s soccer players have sought to “dramatize their narrative for media attention,” citing coverage of the lawsuit from WTHR, the IndyStar and The Butler Collegian. They state that “Plaintiffs have earnestly displayed their narratives, replete with anatomical detail, in an obvious quest for media attention. Plaintiffs have made it abundantly clear that they want all the attention that they can possibly garner.”
The Butler Collegian could not reach former women’s soccer players for comment. The plaintiffs’ legal counsel declined to comment on behalf of the plaintiffs. Current players have declined to comment on the ongoing litigation.
A hearing regarding the players’ ability to proceed with pseudonyms will be held on Oct. 28, 2024, at the Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Indianapolis.
The Collegian will continue to investigate and report on this story.
