Williams v. GEICO CORP.
792 F. Supp. 2d 58
D.D.C.2011Background
- Williams, former GEICO systems technician, alleges violations of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA.
- He was employed June 2008–April 2009 and missed days due to congestive heart failure.
- Terminated on April 9, 2009; Williams claims termination due to medical disabilities.
- Administrative remedies exhausted; EEOC right-to-sue notice issued May 25, 2010; suit filed within 90 days.
- GEICO is a Maryland corporation; dispute whether DC or Maryland is proper venue due to location of decision and employment records.
- Service of process to GEICO Plaza, Chevy Chase, Maryland, is contested; GEICO secretary Estela Turlik allegedly not authorized to receive service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is venue proper in DC under Title VII provisions? | Williams alleges the employment decision was DC-based. | GEICO argues venue lies in Maryland where records and principal office are located. | Venue improper in DC; Maryland proper. |
| If venue improper, should the case be transferred rather than dismissed? | Not explicitly stated; (drug to re-file) the filing window may be preserved. | Transfer is discretionary but dismissal possible. | Transfer to District of Maryland appropriate to satisfy justice and avoid time-bar. |
| Was service of process sufficient to invoke personal jurisdiction? | Process server had apparent authority; service valid. | Turlik lacked authority to accept service; service failed Rule 4(h). | Service of process insufficient; no valid service. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) (transfer permitted to cure improper venue to protect action upon statute of limitations)
- Clippers v. Frank, 704 F. Supp. 285 (D.D.C. 1989) (proper service where apparent authority to accept service shown)
- Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161 (2002) (constitutional notice requires reasonably calculated notice but not necessarily actual receipt)
- Stebbins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 413 F.2d 1100 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (venue limited to districts where practice occurred under Title VII)
- Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (transfer and forum shopping considerations in venue decisions)