VIUP v. GARLAND
1:24-cv-01823
| D.D.C. | Dec 19, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Lauren Viup alleges sexual harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment, and sex discrimination by her former ATF employer in Louisville, Kentucky.
- The suit was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Defendant, Attorney General Merrick Garland (in his official capacity), moved to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Western District of Kentucky.
- The basis for the venue challenge is the specific venue provisions of Title VII, which were not met in D.C.
- Viup responded, consenting to transfer to Kentucky and not disputing the venue impropriety in D.C.
- The court decided the interest of justice supports transfer instead of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue was proper in D.C. | Consented to transfer; did not dispute | Venue improper under Title VII | Venue is improper in D.C. |
| Whether transfer or dismissal was appropriate | Consented to transfer | Requested dismissal or transfer | Case transferred to Western District of Kentucky |
| Applicability of Title VII venue provisions | Did not contest application | Title VII venue rules not satisfied | Title VII venue requirements govern |
| Whether to reach merits of dismissal arguments | No argument; focused on transfer | Sought dismissal for other reasons | Court declined to reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Sebelius, 51 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014) (explains courts should transfer, rather than dismiss, when venue is improper under Title VII if in the interest of justice)
- Donnell v. Nat’l Bureau, 568 F. Supp. 93 (D.D.C. 1983) (applies Title VII’s venue provision to employment discrimination claims)
- James v. Booz-Allen, 227 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2002) (clarifies when the principal office provision applies in Title VII venue analysis)