Hargrove v. ABM Industries Inc.

Background

Maurice G. Hargrove, who is representing himself, filed claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state law. He alleged that he sought employment at Godfrey Environmental Contract LLC in Chipley, Florida, and that the prospective employer refused to accommodate his disability and discriminated against him based on race. The opinion states that Hargrove resides in Chipley, Florida.

Hargrove named ABM Industries, Inc. as the defendant and provided an address for that company in New York, New York. He did not allege facts explaining the relationship between ABM Industries and Godfrey Environmental Contract LLC.

Venue analysis

Venue is the legally proper location for a lawsuit. Title VII allows employment-discrimination claims to be brought in the district where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred or where the person would have worked absent the alleged discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act uses the same venue rule.

The court concluded that venue for Hargrove’s Title VII and disability claims was proper in the Northern District of Florida because the proposed employment was in Chipley, Florida. The court stated that it was unclear whether venue might also be proper in the Southern District of New York based on where ABM Industries maintained and administered relevant employment records.

The court further determined that it could transfer the action under federal venue statutes if doing so served the interest of justice. It noted that Hargrove did not reside in the chosen New York forum and that his claims did not arise there, circumstances that made his choice of forum entitled to less weight.

Ruling and disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The order closed the case in the Southern District of New York, directed that no summons issue from that court, and left the question of proceeding without prepayment of fees to the transferee court.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not decide whether Hargrove’s discrimination or disability allegations are legally valid.