A federal judge in Massachusetts has blocked a job applicant's attempt to remain anonymous in a class action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, in which the financial giant is accused of illegally using protected criminal history information to discriminate against potential hires. The plaintiff, known as Jane Doe, sought to keep her identity hidden in the public court records, but the judge ruled against her efforts, citing legal precedent that bars pseudonyms after a plaintiff’s name has been publicly revealed.

Morgan Stanley Applicant Lawsuit: Court Denies Anonymous Motion

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Julia E. Kobick stood firm in her earlier decision, rejecting Jane Doe’s request to proceed anonymously. The plaintiff had already signed and submitted an affidavit with her real name to the public docket, a move that under the First Circuit’s 2022 ruling made it impossible for her to remain anonymous. In that decision, the court had made it clear: once a name is out, pseudonyms are off the table.

Doe had tried to reverse the situation, suggesting she could replace the affidavit with one lacking her real name, but Judge Kobick was not persuaded. Reconsideration requires new evidence or legal errors, and Doe’s request didn’t meet that standard, the judge explained. Motions, she emphasized, cannot be used to "undo procedural failures."

Plaintiff’s Identity Already Public

Judge Kobick pointed out that Doe’s efforts to conceal her identity came too late. "Her motion seeks to undo her choice to disclose her identity in this case," the judge wrote, noting that the issue had been flagged months ago during a hearing on Morgan Stanley's motion to compel arbitration. With her real name already in the court record, the plaintiff's attempt to go back was futile.

Discrimination Allegations Against Morgan Stanley

The lawsuit, which has captured attention due to its implications for both criminal history protections and employment discrimination, was filed by Doe, a Black woman from Boston's Dorchester neighborhood. She alleges that Morgan Stanley used her criminal history—specifically arrests that did not lead to convictions—to deny her a job, in violation of Massachusetts law.

Massachusetts law prohibits employers from asking about arrests or other legal issues that did not result in convictions. Employers are also barred from using such information to discriminate against applicants. According to Doe’s complaint, Morgan Stanley violated these rules during her application process.

Morgan Stanley Applicant Lawsuit: Background of the Case

Doe had applied for a senior registered service associate position in March 2022. Although Morgan Stanley initially offered her the role in May, it later demanded details of her arrest history, as well as police reports and court documents. The lawsuit claims these requests crossed the legal line and that the bank's actions disproportionately impacted communities of color, who face higher arrest rates than white individuals, as noted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Ultimately, Morgan Stanley rescinded the job offer in August 2022, citing the background check findings. This move sparked Doe’s lawsuit, now shaping up as a potential class action.

Morgan Stanley Applicant Lawsuit: Legal Teams in Action

Jane Doe is represented by Stephen S. Churchill of Fair Work PC, while Morgan Stanley is defended by Justin F. Keith of Greenberg Traurig LLP. Both sides have yet to comment on the latest development.

The case, which could have significant repercussions for hiring practices, continues to unfold as Doe presses forward with claims that Morgan Stanley’s actions violated state law.