Skip to main content

Doe No. 1 v. United States

Fed. Cl.February 5, 2020No. 19-1749
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Elaine D. Kaplan
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a protective order and permission to proceed anonymously in their FLSA overtime compensation claim against the FBI, finding that the severe national security risks and potential for physical harm outweighed the public interest in disclosure.

Excerpt

REPORTED OPINION granting Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Elaine D. Kaplan. (feb) Service on parties made. Keywords re Opinion and Order on Motion for Protective Order: Protective Order Anonymity FLSA Overtime Pay Federal Bureau of Investigation English Monitor Analyst

What This Ruling Means

**FBI Worker Wins Right to Privacy in Overtime Pay Case** This case involved a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee who sued the government for unpaid overtime wages. The worker claimed they weren't properly compensated for overtime hours worked, which violates federal wage laws. The employee requested to keep their identity hidden during the lawsuit, likely due to concerns about potential retaliation for suing their employer. The court granted the worker's request for a "protective order," which means the employee can pursue their overtime pay claim while remaining anonymous in court documents. This allows the case to proceed without revealing the worker's name publicly. The judge agreed that protecting the employee's identity was appropriate in this situation. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that courts recognize employees may face genuine risks when suing powerful employers like federal agencies. Workers have the right to pursue valid wage claims, and courts can provide protection when there are legitimate concerns about retaliation. This case demonstrates that employees don't always have to choose between getting paid what they're owed and protecting their careers. However, protective orders aren't automatic - workers must request them and show why anonymity is necessary.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Doe No. 1 v. United States from the same court.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.