888 F. Supp. 2d 42
D.D.C.2012Background
- Jacqueline Corbett, a DC resident, has worked as a baker's assistant at Safeway since 1996 and alleges racial discrimination and a hostile work environment.
- Plaintiff asserts repeated discriminatory acts from 1998 through 2008, including name-calling, increased workloads, and denial of vacation and pay issues.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge on January 24, 2011 and received a right-to-sue letter on June 27, 2011, filing suit on September 27, 2011 against Safeway and eight individual defendants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss (or for summary judgment) on November 2, 2011, challenging venue and personal jurisdiction.
- The court granted the motion, dismissing for improper venue (and lack of personal jurisdiction), without addressing the merits.
- Venue and personal jurisdiction issues are dispositive; the action is dismissed or would be transferred/dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) and §13-423.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in DC under Title VII and general venue. | Corbett argues DC is proper because she resides there, acts occurred there, and Safeway has facilities there. | Defendants contend acts and records were in Maryland/other states, not DC. | Venue improper in DC for Title VII and other counts. |
| Whether the court should dismiss or transfer for improper venue. | Not explicitly restated beyond venue contentions (DC as proper). | Improper venue warrants dismissal or transfer. | Dismissal appropriate (in the interest of justice, transfer not warranted). |
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over seven individual defendants. | Plaintiff asserts contacts with DC support jurisdiction. | Defendants reside outside DC; no sufficient minimum contacts shown. | Court lacks personal jurisdiction over seven defendants. |
| Whether the merits are addressed given venue and PJ issues. | Merits not addressed due to venue and jurisdiction dismissals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayes v. RCA Serv. Co., 546 F. Supp. 661 (D.D.C. 1982) (venue and locus of employment practices considerations)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (discretion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue)
- Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (venue considerations in employment-discrimination actions)
- Pendleton v. Mukasey, 552 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008) (guidance on proper venue when locus of disputed practice is elsewhere)
- Walden v. Locke, 629 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) (venue not proper where locus of practice is outside DC)