OPINION
Plaintiff Vivian Peikin, a former employee of Defendant Kimmel & Sulverman, P.C. (“Kimmel & Silverman”), a Pennsylvania professional corporation, filed this lawsuit against her former employers, alleging that she was harassed and discriminated against on account of her age and gender. Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendants [Docket Item 7] seeking (1) dismissal or summary judgment as to Plaintiffs New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) claims, and (2) transfer of the remainder of Plaintiffs claims to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs NJLAD claims, and will transfer this matter to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident and former employee of Kimmel & Silverman, a Pennsylvania professional corporation. (ComplV 1.) Plaintiff was hired as an associate attorney by Kimmel & Silverman in July 1999, and she worked at the firm’s office in Ambler, Pennsylvania until October 20, 2006, when she was terminated. 1 (Id. at ¶ 33; Graham Aff. ¶¶ 8, 17.) At the time of Plaintiffs termination, she was fifty-eight years old, which made her the oldest female attorney at the firm. (Compm 34-35.)
Plaintiff alleges that over the course of her employment at Kimmel & Silverman, she was subjected to repeated acts of harassment and discrimination on account of her age and gender, and that the cumulative effect of these acts created a hostile working environment. (Id. at ¶ 27.) The specific discriminatory acts Plaintiff complains of include her allegations that: Defendants Kimmel and Silverman engaged in sexual relationships with younger female employees and then gave preferential treatment to those employees, (id.); Defendants Kimmel and Silverman excluded her from meetings, slammed doors in her face, and screamed at her, (id.); Defendants Kimmel and Silverman made inappropriate sexual jokes in her presence, (id.); Defendants Kimmel and Silverman relegated female associates in the Ambler, Pennsylvania office, but not their male counterparts, to undesirable office space in the basement, (id); Defendant Kimmel stuck his hand down the pants of one female employee and sent sexually inappropriate emails to another female employee, (id. at ¶ 28); Defеndant Silverman took Plaintiff to a strip club in New Orleans and purchased lap dances for female associates *656 at the club, (id. at ¶ 29); and Defendant Silverman encouraged a male associate to expose himself during a dinner at a conference in San Francisco. (Id.)
Plaintiff alleges that on September 13, 2006, she received an “extremely hostile” email from Defendant Kimmel. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff initiated a conversation with Defendant Sil-verman about the email in which she expressed concerns that she was being discriminated against and subjected to a hostile work environment; Defendant Silverman informed Plaintiff that she should speak with Mr. Kimmel about her concerns. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Thirty minutes after she spoke with Defendant Sil-verman, Defendant Kimmel summoned Plaintiff to his office, where he “berated Plaintiff for her complaint and verbally attacked her.” (Id. at ¶ 32.) Roughly one month later, on Octоber 20, 2006, Plaintiff was terminated without explanation and was replaced by a twenty-eight-year-old male attorney. (Id. at ¶¶ 33, 36.)
While none of the discriminatory conduct that Defendants are alleged to have committed took place in New Jersey, Plaintiff alleges that she experienced the effects of Defendants’ conduct in New Jersey, on account of the fact that the majority of her work at Kimmel & Silverman took place in New Jersey. (Peikin Aff. ¶ 4.) According to Plaintiff, she worked four out of five days each week in New Jersey, (id.), with approximately 90% of her work centering around New Jersey-based clients and cases. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this action on November 16, 2007 [Docket Item I]. The Complaint alleges that Kimmel & Silverman discriminated against, harassed, and retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII (Count I), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (Count II), and the NJLAD (Count III); and that Defendants Kimmel and Silverman “aided, abetted, incited, compelled and/or coerced Defendant Law Firm in the hostile work environment, discrimination and retaliation to which Plaintiff was subjected” in violation of the NJLAD (Count IV). (ComplV 65.) Defendants subsequently filed the motion presently under consideration, to the merits of which the Court now turns.
II. DISCUSSION
In their motion, Defendants seek two forms of relief. First, Defendants have moved for dismissal and/or summary judgment as to Plaintiffs NJLAD claims, arguing thаt because Plaintiff was not employed in New Jersey and because none of the allegedly discriminatory conduct took place in New Jersey, New Jersey law does not govern Plaintiffs discrimination claims. In addition, Defendants have moved to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing, first, that venue in this forum is improper under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and, alternatively, that the case should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court addresses thesе matters in turn below.
A. NJLAD Claims
1. Standard of Review
The Court first addresses the standard of review that governs its analysis of Defendants’ motion. Defendants have moved for dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and/or for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Because the parties’ motion practice raises matters “beyond the face of the pleadings,”
Robinson v. Dalton,
Summary judgment is appropriate when the materials of record “show that there is
*657
no gеnuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). A dispute is “genuine” if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.”
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
2. Analysis
The parties’ submissions do not raise any factual disputes as to the viability of Plaintiffs NJLAD claims, and the Court’s determination focuses exclusively on a question of law: do New Jersey’s antidiscrimination laws protect a Pennsylvania resident еmployed by a Pennsylvania professional corporation from discriminatory acts allegedly undertaken in Pennsylvania if, over the course of her employment, the employee conducted business in New Jersey? For the following reasons, the Court agrees with Defendants that this question must be answered in the negative.
As this Court has previously recognized, “New Jersey courts have consistently applied the law of the
state of employment
to claims of wоrkplace discrimination, and therefore only apply the NJLAD if the claimant was employed in New Jersey.”
Weinberg v. Interep Corp.,
No. 05-5458,
Plaintiffs claims differ from those addressed in
Buccilli, Kelman,
and
Satz,
because, unlike the plaintiffs in those cases, Ms. Peikin has never been a New Jersey resident. (Comply 1.) Instead, Plaintiff seeks to invoke the protections of the NJLAD under the theory that, while she was employed in Pennsylvania by a Pеnnsylvania professional corporation and based out of that corporation’s Pennsylvania office, her legal practice frequently took her to New Jersey. (Peikin Aff. ¶¶ 4-5.) This Court rejected a similar argument in
Weinberg,
noting in that case that the plaintiff had “cite[d] no authority suggesting that the amount of business a claimant conducts in the state is a factor in considering whether a claim can be asserted under the NJLAD.”
2
Weinberg,
*658
Ms. Peikin likewise has failed tо identify any such authority, and the Court is not persuaded that the application of the NJLAD to discriminatory conduct allegedly committed in Pennsylvania by Pennsylvania-based employers against a Pennsylvania-based employee is reasonable. Plaintiff is a Pennsylvania resident who, notwithstanding the fact that she worked on cases for New Jersey clients and frequently traveled to New Jersey, was based out of Kimmel & Silverman’s Ambler, Pennsylvania offiсe throughout her seven-year tenure at the firm.
3
(Compl. ¶ 1; Graham Aff. ¶¶ 8, 17.) Significantly, all of the discriminatory acts allegedly perpetrated by Defendants, including the termination of Plaintiff, took place at the Ambler, Pennsylvania office, save for one incident that took place in San Francisco and another incident that occurred in New Orleans. (Compl.1ffl 27-36.) After she was terminated, Plaintiff received unemployment benefits from the Pennsylvaniа Department of Labor and Industry Unemployment Compensation Division, (Graham Aff. ¶ 13), and filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. (Compl.Ex. 1.) In short, the undisputed evidence in the record indicates that Plaintiffs “state of employment” was Pennsylvania, and that all of the allegedly discriminatory conduct at issue in this case took place outside of New Jersey.
Weinberg,
In light of the fact that “New Jersey law regulates conduct in New Jersey, not outside the state,”
Buccilli,
B. Motion to Transfer Venue
Defendants have moved to transfer the remainder of this litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing, first, that vеnue in this forum is improper under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (3), and, second, that even if venue is proper, that the case should be transferred pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As the following discussion makes clear, the Court finds that while venue in this District is not improper under § 2000e-5(f)(3), the case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under § 1404(a).
1. Venue Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3)
Initially, the Court finds that this District is not an improper venue for *659 Plaintiffs claims. Venue for a Title VII claim is properly laid
in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice
§ 2000e — 5(f)(3).
4
While the Court found, in addressing the viability of Plaintiffs NJLAD claims,
supra,
that Pennsylvania was the state in which Plaintiff was employed and the state where the allegedly unlawful employment practices were committed, under § 2000e — 5(f)(3), venue for Title VII claims is proper not only in the state of employment, but also “in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice.”
Id.; cf. Richardson v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ.,
2. Motion to Transfer
For the reasons explained below, however, the Court agreеs with Defendants that this case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” The Court of Appeals has explained that
[i] n ruling on § 1404(a) motions, courts have not limited their consideration to the three enumeratеd factors in § 1404(a) (convenience of parties, convenience of witnesses, or interests of justice), and, indeed, commentators have called on the courts to consider all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum.
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
Among the private interests that the Jumara court identified as being significant to the § 1404(a) analysis are:
plaintiffs forum preference as manifested in the original choice; the defendant’s preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relаtive physical and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses — but only to the extent that the witnesses may *660 actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum).
Id. at 879 (citations omitted). Among the public interests to be considered are:
the enforceability of the judgment-practiсal considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.
Id. at 879-80 (citations omitted). It is well-settled that the burden on a § 1404(a) motion must be borne by the party seeking to transfer the case, and that “the motion must not be lightly granted.” Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 3d § 3848.
Of all of the private and public interest factors identified in
Jumara,
the sole consideration that weighs against transfer in this case is Plaintiffs forum preference.
5
While mindful of the principle that “the plaintiffs choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed,”
Jumara,
The remaining private and public interest considerations identified in
Jumara
either weigh in favor of transfer or are not implicated by the facts of this case. Most critical among these factors аre considerations of where Plaintiffs “elaim[s] arose” and “the local interest in deciding local controversies at home.”
Jumara,
*661
Moreover, as numerous courts in this Circuit have recognized, controversies relating to emplоyment discrimination claims are precisely the sort of disputes to which the local community interests referenced in
Jumara
attach.
See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Senoral Corp., Inc.,
No. 06-2874,
There is no relationship of the community in which this court sits and from which its jurors are drawn to the occurrences giving rise to this litigation. That relatiоnship is strong in the District of New Jersey. The defendant is a corporate citizen of New Jersey. If defendant is culpable, it is for decisions made and a course of conduct undertaken in New Jersey. Resolution of the employment discrimination and sexual harassment claims particularly would be most meaningful and salutary in the community in which these unlawful acts were allegedly perpetrated, in which the alleged perpetrator mаintains a workforce and in which the alleged victim was employed and resides.
The public policies of the fora, to the extent that they are implicated by this case, likewise weigh in favor of transfer.
Jumara,
The remaining § 1404(a) considerations are not implicated in this case. As was the case in
Lamusta,
“[t]he notion of inconvenience literally is not implicated when the competing fora are Philadelphia and Camden.”
Lamusta,
As was true in Lamusta, then,
[t]he choice of forum of either party in this case can be accommodated with virtually no inconvenience to the other or to any prospective witness. The ultimate question is whether the lack of any connection between plaintiffs claims and this district and the substantially greater interest of [Pennsylvania] in the adjudication of this controversy sufficiently outweigh plaintiffs choice of forum. Giving diminished but still appreciable weight tо plaintiffs preference, the court concludes that the answer is yes.
Id. at *4. This Court once again finds Lamusta’s reasoning persuasive. The center of gravity in this case — where all parties reside, where Plaintiff was employed, where the discriminatory conduct charged in the Complaint allegedly took place, and where the local interests implicated by the parties’ dispute are based — is inarguably in the Eastern District of Pеnn *662 sylvania. When these considerations are balanced against the lone factor disfavoring transfer — Plaintiffs preference to litigate this dispute outside her home forum in a separate District from where the conflict arose — the appropriateness of transferring this case is apparent. The Court will accordingly grant Defendants’ motion to transfer this matter to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs NJLAD claims, and will transfer the remainder of this action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The accompanying Order will be entered.
Notes
. While Kimmel & Silverman maintained two offices in New Jersey during the period of Plaintiff's employment with the firm, Plaintiff worked exclusively out of the firm’s Ambler, Pennsylvania office. (Peikin Aff. ¶ 11.)
. In
Weinberg,
the Court further noted that "even if this factor was germane, in this case,
*658
the sales generated by Plaintiff in New Jersey were not substantial.”
Weinberg,
. That Kimmel & Silverman maintains an office in Nеw Jersey, at which Plaintiff never worked and which has no connection to any of the allegedly discriminatory actions in this case, does not bring the Pennsylvania-based acts of alleged discrimination within the ambit of the NJLAD.
See Satz,
. It is well-settled that "[t]his venue rеquirement is mandatory for Title VII ... claims, and thus, other more general venue provisions do not apply to such claims.”
Colon v. Pitney Bowes Corp.,
No. 06-5016,
. As a threshold consideration, the Court notes that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is a "district ... where [this action] might have been brought.” § 1404(a). The courts of that District would have personal jurisdiction over the parties to this action, all of whom are Pennsylvania residents. (Compl-¶¶ 1, 5-7.) Venue in that District would lie under § 2000e-5(£)(3), since Pennsylvania is "the State in which the unlawful employment practice [at issue here] is alleged to have been committed.” § 2000e-5 (f)(3).