Herbert v. Sebelius
925 F. Supp. 2d 13
D.D.C.2013Background
- Herbert, a pro se plaintiff, sues Kathleen Sebelius in her official capacity for Title VII claims arising from alleged disability harassment and retaliation at HHS Region IV in Atlanta, Georgia.
- Plaintiff alleges harassment, privacy breaches, retaliation for filing complaints against a private doctor and law enforcement officers, and surveillance related to her disability and accommodation needs.
- Herbert’s employment began April 2010 as a health insurance specialist for CMS Region IV in Atlanta; most alleged conduct occurred there.
- She filed nearly fifty EEO complaints beginning December 2011, with processing and investigations occurring outside the District of Columbia.
- Defendant moved to dismiss or transfer; plaintiff’s venue argument centered on DC records and activities, while defendant submitted evidence showing Atlanta as the locus of events and records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in DC under Title VII | Herbert asserts DC is proper due to employer location and records there | Defendant shows events/records occurred in Atlanta; DC venue improper | Venue improper in DC; transfer warranted |
| Whether the case should be transferred or dismissed | — | Transfer to ND Georgia is appropriate to conserve interests of justice | Court transfers to Northern District of Georgia |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (permits deciding venue before jurisdiction on non-merits issues)
- Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 486 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (jurisdiction not necessary to resolve threshold venue questions)
- Williams v. GEICO Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 58 (D.D.C. 2011) (plaintiff bears venue burden; transfer often preferred over dismissal)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (transfer favored to avoid time-bar and preserve claims)
- Pendleton v. Mukasey, 552 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008) (considerations of statute of limitations in determining transfer vs. dismissal)
- Darby v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002) (venue proof can rely on extrinsic evidence; locus of conduct/records matters)
- Lamont v. Haig, 590 F.2d 1124 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (venue depends on locus of discriminatory acts and records)