Parker v. US Department of Health and Human Services
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88154
| D.D.C. | 2014Background
- Pro se plaintiff Leta N. Parker sued her former employer, Federal Occupational Health (FOH), alleging discrimination, disparate treatment, hostile work environment, and retaliation based on race, color, gender, and disability.
- Parker originally filed in D.C. Superior Court; cases were removed to federal court and consolidated under Civ. Action Nos. 14-440 and 14-508.
- Defendant Secretary Kathleen Sebelius moved to dismiss for improper venue under Title VII’s special venue provision (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3)) or, alternatively, to transfer to the District of Maryland.
- The FOH is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland; plaintiff’s employment, records, and alleged adverse actions occurred in Maryland, and plaintiff listed Maryland addresses in agency filings.
- The District of Columbia had no connection to the alleged discriminatory acts; plaintiff lives in Hawaii.
- The Court concluded D.C. is not a proper venue under any of Title VII’s four venue categories and exercised its discretion to transfer the cases to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in D.C. is proper under Title VII’s venue statute | Parker alleged she was employed in D.C. and satisfied prerequisites for suit | FOH headquartered in Bethesda; alleged acts, records, and workplace were in Maryland, so D.C. is improper | Venue in D.C. is improper under Title VII |
| Whether the case should be dismissed for improper venue | Implicitly sought to proceed in D.C. | Dismissal urged as remedy for improper venue | Court denied dismissal |
| Whether transfer is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) | Plaintiff did not oppose transfer | Defendant asked transfer to District of Maryland as proper forum | Court granted transfer to District of Maryland in the interest of justice |
| Whether Title VII venue rules apply to Rehabilitation Act accommodation claims | Not argued separately by plaintiff | Secretary contended Title VII venue rules still control for Rehabilitation Act claims | Court noted Title VII venue statute applies to such claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Pendleton v. Mukasey, 552 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008) (court accepts well-pleaded facts but not legal conclusions on venue)
- Darby v. U.S. Dep’t of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D.D.C. 2002) (defendant must present facts to defeat plaintiff’s venue assertions)
- James v. Booz-Allen Hamilton, Inc., 227 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2002) (transferring employment cases is generally favored over dismissal for improper venue)
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1962) (transfer in the interest of justice favored over dismissal)
- Ebron v. Dep’t of the Army, 766 F. Supp. 2d 54 (D.D.C. 2011) (employment discrimination claim transferred rather than dismissed for improper venue)
- Walden v. Locke, 629 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009) (same)
- Donnell v. Nat’l Guard Bureau, 568 F. Supp. 93 (D.D.C. 1983) (Title VII’s venue provision controls over general venue statute)
- Stebbins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 413 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (same)