Crowley v. Napolitano
925 F. Supp. 2d 89
D.D.C.2013Background
- Crowley is a Secret Service Special Agent assigned to a New York protective detail since April 2010.
- She alleges sex-based disparities in travel and overtime assignments and retaliation after raising concerns.
- She contacted the EEOC in Sept. 2010 and filed a formal discrimination complaint in Dec. 2010; she received an EEOC right-to-sue letter in Oct. 2012.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or transfer venue, arguing the case does not belong in the District of Columbia.
- Venue under Title VII may lie in the district where the unlawful practice occurred, where records are kept, or where the employee would have worked; here, the Government argues none apply in DC, suggesting transfer to SDNY is appropriate.
- Court grants transfer to the Southern District of New York, finding DC improper for venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is DC proper venue under Title VII’s venue statute? | Crowley asserts venue can lie where practices occurred. | Napolitano argues venue is improper in DC. | No; venue improper in DC; transfer ordered to SDNY. |
| Where did the unlawful practices occur? | Disparate travel/overtime occurred in the New York area. | Records and operations located in DC complicate venue. | Route for venue lies in New York; practices occurred there. |
| Are employment records located in DC sufficient for DC venue? | Requested discovery to locate documents. | Records relevant to allegations are in New York. | Not sufficient; records location favors NY venue. |
| Does the catchall principal-office provision apply? | Not applicable if other subsections fail. | Does not apply since NY is proper or DC not proper. | Catchall not applicable; venue should be in NY. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pendleton v. Mukasey, 552 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008) (standard for venue analysis in 12(b)(3) motions; accept factual allegations as true but not legal conclusions)
- Darby v. Dep’t of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002) (courts may consider non-pleadings to resolve venue questions)
- Artis v. Greenspan, 223 F. Supp. 2d 149 (D.D.C. 2002) (permits consideration of outside-the-pleadings on venue issues)
- James v. Verizon Servs. Corp., 639 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2009) (second prong of venue statute; master records location matters)
- Washington v. Gen. Elec. Corp., 686 F. Supp. 361 (D.D.C. 1998) (master set of employment records location governs venue under second prong)
- Khalil v. L-3 Commc’ns Titan Grp., 656 F. Supp. 2d 134 (D.D.C. 2009) (burden on plaintiff to establish proper venue; specifics of records location)