Ellis-Smith v. Secretary of the Army
793 F. Supp. 2d 173
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Sheri Ellis-Smith, a black female contract specialist for the Army Corps of Engineers, alleges discrimination and retaliation based on race and gender, with prior EEO complaints filed in Germany.
- Plaintiff’s complaints were largely processed in Europe, with one set of filings described as initiated in Germany and investigated by German/European office channels.
- Defendant Secretary of the Army moves to dismiss for improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to a proper district.
- Venue analysis centers on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), which lists three district-based prongs and a fallback to the respondent’s principal office if none apply.
- Plaintiff does not argue prongs 1 or 3 provide venue; prong 2 contends venue lies where employment records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered.
- The Secretary argues records are maintained in Europe; this leads the court to conclude venue is improper in the District of Columbia and should be transferred to the appropriate district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper under § 2000e-5(f)(3) prongs 1-3. | Ellis-Smith asserts Germany-based conduct could support venue in DC under prongs 1-3. | Secretary contends none of the three prongs are satisfied for DC. | Venue improper under prongs 1-3; transfer needed. |
| Whether the employment-records maintenance prong supports DC venue. | Records may have been processed in DC, suggesting proper venue under prong 2. | Most records are maintained in Europe; DC venue not supported. | Records were maintained in Europe; prong 2 fails. |
| Whether venue may be proper under the fallback provision for the respondent's principal office. | Not explicitly argued besides other prongs. | Secretary’s principal office is at the Pentagon, Arlington, VA. | DC venue improper; principal office provision applies. |
| Whether the case should be transferred rather than dismissed. | Not favorable to transfer emphasis. | Transfer is appropriate to a district where venue lies. | Case transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khalil v. L-3 Commc'ns Titan Grp., 656 F.Supp.2d 134 (D.D.C.2009) (venue challenge—defendant must defeat plaintiff's venue assertion)
- Washington v. General Elec. Corp., 686 F.Supp.361 (D.D.C.1988) (records-location theory limits venue to proper district)
- Amirmokri v. Abraham, 217 F.Supp.2d 88 (D.D.C.2002) (EEO records maintenance not controlling for venue under § 2000e-5(f)(3))
- Donnell v. Nat'l Guard Bureau, 568 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.D.C.1983) (venue grounded in statutory provisions, not 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e))
- Ebron v. Dep't of the Army, 766 F.Supp.2d 54 (D.D.C.2011) (principal-office venue considerations in Title VII cases)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (Supreme Court 1962) (transfer in interest of justice when venue is improper)