Hickman v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 4:25-cv-05346

Plaintiff Shena Hickman, a Florida resident, filed a pro se action against Meta Platforms, Inc. alleging employment discrimination under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Hickman alleges discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, sex, national origin, and age related to her employment at Meta in Burlingame, California (October 2017–October 2018).
The claimed discriminatory and retaliatory acts allegedly occurred in various locations, including California, Florida, and New York.
Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc. is headquartered in Menlo Park, California; all employment records and primary witnesses are likely located there.
Hickman previously filed similar claims against Meta in the Northern District of California, which were dismissed as frivolous.
The Southern District of New York reviewed venue suitability and determined transfer was appropriate under forum non conveniens principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper venue for Title VII/ADEA claims	Venue valid in SDNY because alleged acts occurred in NY	Venue should be in N.D. Cal.	Venue more appropriate in Northern District of California
Convenience and interests of justice	Plaintiff's current location justifies SDNY	Most evidence/witnesses in CA	Convenience, justice favor transfer to California
Prior litigation	Not specifically argued	Prior case in N.D. Cal. supports transfer	Prior similar action in N.D. Cal. supports transfer
IFP and pro bono counsel	Application pending, request for appointed counsel	N/A	Left to deciding court (Northern District of California)

D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (district courts have broad discretion to determine convenience under § 1404(a) and consider fairness case-by-case)
N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (lists factors for determining convenience and justice in venue transfer)