NAWL Joins 4th Circuit Amicus Brief in Support of Student Sexual Assault Survivor

Isabell Retamoza • March 20, 2024

On April 22, 2021, NAWL, along with the National Women's Law Center, our law firm partner Sidley Austin LLP and 50 other organizations, submitted an amicus brief to the Fourth Circuit in B.R. v. F.S.C.B. in support of a student sexual assault survivor.


B.R. was 12 years old when she was repeatedly raped, tortured, and threatened with death by her middle school classmates. Although B.R. begged school officials to help her, they ignored her and even blamed her for her own mistreatment.


Shortly before B.R. turned 20, she filed a lawsuit under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” against her school district and former classmates, alleging violations of Title IX and other laws. The school district responded that B.R. was required to file her Title IX lawsuit within two years of her eighteenth birthday. And even though B.R. did file her lawsuit within that period, the school district argued that her case must still be thrown out because she didn’t also get permission to use a pseudonym before she first filed her case.


A federal district court in Virginia sided with B.R., allowing her to continue her lawsuit against her school using her initials. The court agreed with the school district that B.R. didn’t follow the process for using a pseudonym but decided that her case shouldn’t be thrown out based on this procedural technicality. The school district is now appealing this decision to the Fourth Circuit.


Our brief points out that survivors—especially younger survivors—already face many barriers to reporting sexual abuse and that having the option to use a pseudonym is critical to their ability to seek justice through the courts.


Sexual harassment affects far too many students, but the vast majority do not come forward. In grades 7-12, 56% of girls and 40% of boys are sexually harassed in a given school year, but less than 10% of them tell a teacher, guidance counselor, or other adult at school about it. More than one in five girls ages 14-18 are kissed or touched without their consent, but only 2% of them tell their school.


There are so many reasons why most student survivors—especially those who were sexually assaulted as children—don’t come forward. In addition to feelings of shame, self-blame, and physical and mental trauma, many survivors are afraid of not being believed, facing retaliation by their abuser and peers, or getting in trouble with school administrators. And when they do come forward publicly, they often face further victimization and retaliation that can make the underlying trauma worse.


This is why being able to use a pseudonym is so essential for survivors. Pseudonyms allow survivors to challenge the abuse they endured in court while giving them greater privacy, safety, and ability to heal. This is especially important to student victims today, given the risk of information going viral on social media or having Google search results that follow them for the rest of their lives. Survivors should never have to choose between protecting their privacy or seeking justice. And courts should not let unwritten procedural technicalities bar civil rights cases.


Our brief also explains that B.R.’s school district is wrong about the law. First, even though B.R. didn’t ask for permission before using a pseudonym, the Supreme Court has ruled that these types of procedural technicalities should not result in lawsuits being dismissed. Second, Virginia’s timeframe for filing any kind of lawsuit about sexual assault against children is 20 years, not 2 years. So, either way, B.R.’s case must be allowed to continue.


Supporting B.R. through this brief is just one of the ways NWLC is fighting for survivors’ rights during Sexual Assault Awareness Month. Check out our Survivor Champion Stories, which centers Black, Indigenous, people of color, trans and nonbinary survivors and advocates who have traditionally been left out of the conversation on survivor justice.re. To edit this text, click on it and delete this default text and start typing your own or paste your own from a different source.


You can find the brief and updates here.

April 30, 2026
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais , ruling 6–3 that Louisiana’s congressional map creating a second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In reaching that decision, the Court narrowed how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act may be used to remedy racial vote dilution, despite prior findings that Louisiana’s earlier maps likely infringed on the voting rights of Black residents. This decision marks a serious setback for voting rights and democratic participation. For nearly six decades, the Voting Rights Act has served as a cornerstone of our legal system’s effort to confront and remedy structural discrimination in the electoral process. By restricting the tools available to address unequal representation, the Court’s ruling makes it harder to correct long standing disparities in who has a voice in our elections. In a dissent read aloud from the bench, Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that the Court’s decision undermines one of the last effective tools for protecting fair representation. Describing the ruling’s impact on the Voting Rights Act, she wrote that Section 2 is now “all but a dead letter,” unable to fulfill its core purpose. She highlighted that a democracy cannot function as promised when the law prevents meaningful remedies for electoral systems that lock some communities out of political power. NAWL is committed to a democracy that works for everyone, supported by a legal system that recognizes discrimination and acts to correct it. As lawyers, judges, advocates, and scholars, we understand that voting rights are foundational to all other rights. NAWL will continue to engage its members on the implications of this decision through education and dialogue. We invite NAWL members to continue this important conversation by attending our session “ Louisiana v. Callais : Voting Rights and the Future of Our Democracy” at NAWL’s 2026 Annual Meeting in Chicago on July 22–23 . Hear from Jessica Ellsworth (Partner and Co-Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice at Hogan Lovells), Samuel Spital (Associate Director-Counsel at the Legal Defense Fund), Franita Tolson (Dean of USC Gould School of Law), and Wendy Weiser (Vice President, Democracy at Brennan Center for Justice). Our expert panel will examine the implications of this decision and its future impact on voting rights and the rule of law.
March 30, 2026
Perkins Coie LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice
January 1, 2026
Doe v. Catholic Relief Services
December 17, 2025
Female Athletes United v. Ellison
Columns of a classical building with ornate carvings against a clear blue sky.
October 7, 2025
Perkins v. State of Montana
Stone steps leading up to a building with columns, in natural light.
September 10, 2025
Metropolitan School District of Martinsville v. A.C.
More Posts