McLaughlin v. Attorney General, Department of Justice
6:12-cv-01168
| M.D. Fla. | May 25, 2012Background
- McLaughlin, an ATF special agent in Orlando, alleges Title VII discrimination on race and sex and retaliation for prior EEO activity.
- She sues in DC, arguing venue is proper because DOJ/ATF records and actions are here.
- Defendant moves to dismiss for improper venue or transfer to the Middle District of Florida.
- Court analyzes venue under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); finds DC improper but Florida proper.
- Court transfers case to the Middle District of Florida as in the interest of justice.
- ATF records for relevant events are maintained in Tampa, Florida; alleged discriminatory acts occurred there; DC is not proper under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is DC proper venue under Title VII § 2000e-5(f)(3)? | McLaughlin asserts DC proper due to DOJ/ATF custody. | Venue lies where events occurred and records maintained (Florida). | No; DC is not proper under § 2000e-5(f)(3). |
| Do the first two bases of § 2000e-5(f)(3) support Florida venue? | Events and records are in Florida; employment occurred there. | Events occurred in Florida; records are in Tampa. | Yes; Florida is proper under the first two bases. |
| Should the case be transferred to the Middle District of Florida? | Transfer would burden McLaughlin; DC was argued proper due to agency location. | Transfer to Florida serves justice and proper venue. | Yes; transfer to Middle District of Florida is appropriate in the interest of justice. |
| Is a transfer appropriate given convenience considerations and related cases? | Relies on related cases and inconvenient split proceedings. | Convenience not sufficient to retain improper venue; § 1406(a) supports transfer. | Transfer warranted; venue proper in Florida, transfer to Florida granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Darby v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002) (venue analysis and rule 12(b)(3) framework; plaintiff burden)
- Walden v. Locke, 629 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) (appointment of venue; transfer principles under 1406(a))
- Amirmokri v. Abraham, 217 F. Supp. 2d 88 (D.D.C. 2002) (records location not controlling for venue; employment records defined)
- Washington v. General Electric Corp., 686 F. Supp. 361 (D.D.C. 1988) (records location and venue scope in Title VII context)
- Stebbins v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 413 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (Congress intended venue to be limited to relevant districts)
- James v. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2002) (transfer analysis under § 1406(a) and proper venue)