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.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

June 30, 2025

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic , ruling 6–3 that individual Medicaid beneficiaries cannot sue state officials to enforce the “free-choice-of-provider” provision of the Medicaid Act. The Court’s decision could pave the way for states to exclude providers like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid programs, even when doing so limits access to essential reproductive and preventive health care -- and even when the sole basis for doing so is for ideological reasons. This ruling marks a significant setback for reproductive justice and health equity. By narrowing the ability of individuals to challenge state actions that restrict access to care, the Court has further eroded the legal tools available to protect the rights of patients who rely on Medicaid to access fundamental healthcare, including preventative and general care and access to contraception. Marginalized communities will likely be disparately affected. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a powerful dissent, emphasized the real-world consequences of the majority’s decision: “[T]oday’s decision is likely to result in tangible harm to real people. At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them. And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians—and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country—of a deeply personal freedom: the ‘ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.’” NAWL is proud to have joined with the Women’s Bar Association of the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief which underscored the importance of preserving legal avenues for patients to challenge discriminatory and harmful state policies. NAWL stands in solidarity with Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights advocates, and the millions of individuals whose access to care is now at greater risk. We urge our members and allies to continue advocating for a legal system that upholds the rights, health, and dignity of all people—regardless of income, identity, or geography. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting . Hear about this Supreme Court term’s major decisions affecting NAWL’s mission from Arabella Babb Mansfield Award Recipients and co-hosts of the Strict Scrutiny podcast: Leah Litman, Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law School; Melissa Murray, Professor of Law at New York University School of Law; and Kate Shaw, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Additionally, after a workshop screening of the film Zurawski v Texas , Cici Coquillette from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Cassie Ehrenberg from The Lawyering Project and Abortion Defense Network will specifically discuss the Medina decision.

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti

June 24, 2025

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Skrmetti , which upholds a Tennessee law (SB1) banning gender-affirming medical care —such as puberty blockers and hormones— for transgender minors. In the 6–3 decision, the Court held that SB1 does not warrant heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, despite its discriminatory targeting of transgender youth by explicitly permitting hormone treatments and gender-affirming care for youth who identify as cisgender, while denying the same care for youth who identify as trans. This ruling has the potential to reshape access to health care and marks a profound erosion of the Equal Protection clause as a tool for challenging laws that disproportionately affect women and other marginalized groups. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a searing dissent, laid bare the consequences of the Court’s refusal to confront the reality of this legislation: “[T]he majority refuses to call a spade a spade. Instead, it obfuscates a sex classification that is plain on the face of this statute, all to avoid the mere possibility that a different court could strike down SB1, or categorical healthcare bans like it. The Court's willingness to do so here does irrevocable damage to the Equal Protection Clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them. Because there is no constitutional justification for that result, I dissent.” As an organization committed to advancing gender equity under the law, NAWL stands with transgender individuals, families, advocates, and scholars who continue this long fight. The Court’s application of rational basis review to state laws targeting a specific “medical use” may also have far-reaching negative consequences on gender health equity more broadly, including access to reproductive care. NAWL calls on its members and allies to speak out, support impacted communities, and work toward a legal system rooted in dignity, equity, and justice for all. --- NAWL will continue the conversation at the 2025 Annual Meeting during the session, “ U.S. v. Skrmetti : The Future of Gender Equity in Healthcare,” featuring National Center for LGBTQ Rights Legal Director Shannon Minter and Executive Director of the Williams Institute Christy Mallory .

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

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic

NAWL Responds to the Supreme Court Decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti

NAWL Joins Bar Associations' Amicus Brief in Support of Susman Godfrey LLP

NAWL Joins New York State Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Survivor Justice

NAWL Joins U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of Reproductive Justice

NAWL Joins 1st Circuit Amicus Brief Against Educational Censorship