Paray v. Intuit
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05046
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Paray v. Intuit, Chief Judge Swain transferred the case from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District because New York events and residence favored transfer.
Vena Paray and Intuit; the case will proceed, if permitted, in the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York.
What happened
In Paray v. Intuit, Vena Paray, representing herself, sued her former employer over its handling of her mental health issues and her eventual termination. She identified Port Jefferson, New York, as her workplace and lived in Queens County when she filed the case.
The court said venue was proper in the Southern District because the Americans with Disabilities Act allows an employment claim to be filed in any district in New York when the alleged employment practice occurred in that state. But it found that the Eastern District of New York was more convenient because the events occurred in Suffolk County and Paray lived in Queens County.
Chief Judge Swain transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York under the federal convenience-transfer law. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and closed the case in the Southern District; the Eastern District will decide whether Paray may continue without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Paray v. Intuit · No. 1:24-cv-05046
- Laura Swain
- July 9, 2024
Background
Vena Paray brought this action against Intuit, her former employer, concerning the employer’s handling of her mental health issues as an employee and the eventual termination of her employment. She invoked Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which uses the employment-claim venue rules in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Paray represented herself.
The opinion states that Paray identified Port Jefferson, New York, on Long Island, as her place of employment. It also states that she lived in Howard Beach, in Queens County, when she filed the action. The court noted that it was not entirely clear whether Paray worked from home.
Venue and Transfer
The court concluded that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because Paray alleged that she was employed in New York, and the applicable venue rule permits an ADA employment claim to be brought in any district in the state where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Even when venue is proper, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits transfer to another district where the case could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The court considered the location of the underlying events, Paray’s residence, and the reduced weight given to her choice of the Southern District because she did not live there and the operative events occurred outside that district.
The court found that the underlying events occurred in Suffolk County and that Paray lived in Queens County. Both counties are in the Eastern District of New York. It therefore concluded that the Eastern District appeared to be the more convenient forum.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Section 1404(a). The Clerk was directed to transfer the action, and the order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. A summons was not to issue from that court.
The court left to the transferee court the question whether Paray could proceed without prepaying fees. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.