Nichols v. Vilsack
Civil Action No. 2013-1502
D.D.C.May 2, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Barbara Nichols, pro se, sued USDA Secretary Vilsack alleging Title VII and ADEA employment discrimination based on events while she worked for APHIS in Riverdale, Maryland.
- Defendant moved to dismiss the original complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); that motion did not assert improper venue and the Court granted dismissal without prejudice.
- Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same substantive facts and claims; Defendant then moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3)/28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or, alternatively, to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- Defendant argued Title VII venue was improper in D.C. because the alleged acts occurred in Maryland, employment records are maintained electronically in Minnesota, and Nichols would not have worked in D.C.; Defendant conceded ADEA venue in D.C.
- Plaintiff opposed transfer, arguing it would impose a burden and delay final resolution; the Court considered both waiver and the discretionary transfer analysis.
- The Court concluded the government waived the improper-venue defense by not raising it in its first Rule 12 motion and, on the merits, denied transfer under § 1404(a) as convenience and efficiency did not favor Maryland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government waived improper-venue defense by omitting it from its initial Rule 12 motion | Nichols: venue objection is untimely because Def. omitted it earlier | Vilsack: may raise venue after amendment; venue improper in D.C. for Title VII claims | Court: Defense waived under Rules 12(g)(2) and 12(h)(1); waiver not excused by amended complaint |
| Whether transfer to the District of Maryland is warranted under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) | Nichols: transfer burdens plaintiff and delays resolution; keep case here for efficiency | Vilsack: convenience of witnesses (located in Maryland) and slightly faster docket favor transfer | Court: Denied transfer on merits; convenience and public interests do not support transfer and judicial efficiency favors keeping case in D.C. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lederman v. United States, 131 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C.) (failure to assert a defense timely may preclude asserting it after amendment)
- Tarta v. Nation Care, Inc., 864 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2012) (Title VII defendant waived venue objection by not asserting it in initial motion)
- Taylor v. Shinseki, 13 F. Supp. 3d 81 (D.D.C. 2014) (describing § 1404(a) as discretionary, requiring individualized convenience/fairness analysis)