Viup v. Garland, Civil Action No. 2024-1823

Lauren Viup sued her former employer, the ATF Louisville Group 1, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment, and sex discrimination.
She filed the case in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The Attorney General (Garland), sued in his official capacity, moved to dismiss the case for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer it to the Western District of Kentucky.
Viup did not contest Garland’s venue argument and explicitly consented to transfer to Kentucky.
The alleged unlawful employment practices, relevant records, and place of work are all linked to Louisville, Kentucky, not the District of Columbia.
The court decided only the venue issue and ordered the transfer of the case, declining to address other dismissal arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venue is proper in D.C.	Consented to transfer; did not object.	Venue is improper under Title VII provisions	Venue is improper in D.C.; transfer to Kentucky
Whether the case should be dismissed or transferred	Consented to transfer in interest of justice	Sought dismissal or transfer	Transferred to W.D. Kentucky, not dismissed
Applicability of Title VII venue standards	No substantive argument made	Venue statute requires transfer	Title VII venue governs; D.C. does not qualify
Whether to consider substantive dismissal grounds	Not addressed	Raised additional grounds for dismissal	Not reached; only venue issue decided

Parker v. Sebelius, 51 F. Supp. 3d 173 (D.D.C. 2014) (interest of justice generally favors transfer over dismissal on venue grounds)
Donnell v. Nat’l Bureau, 568 F. Supp. 93 (D.D.C. 1983) (Title VII contains a specific venue provision)
James v. Booz-Allen, 227 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2002) (fourth prong of Title VII venue only applies if no other venue is proper)
Mohammadi v. Scharfen, 609 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2009) (court may transfer rather than dismiss when venue is improper)