Jibowu v. Target Corporation

Background

Priscilla Jibowu brought this collective action for herself and other similarly situated employees against Target Corporation and Target Corporation of Minnesota. The plaintiffs alleged that Target improperly classified Executive Team Leaders as exempt executives or administrators and therefore failed to pay overtime required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The court previously denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and conditionally certified an Fair Labor Standards Act collective covering specified types of Executive Team Leaders who worked at Target stores in California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas. By March 2022, the collective included Jibowu and 34 opt-in plaintiffs. The case was then stayed for more than two years while a related collective action, Babbitt v. Target Corp., proceeded in the District of Minnesota.

In Babbitt, the Minnesota court conditionally certified a nationwide collective of certain Target Executive Team Leaders who worked in the United States on or after July 20, 2018. The court’s opinion states that the two cases involved the same basic Fair Labor Standards Act misclassification theory, had overlapping issues and work locations, and had reached the same general stage of second-phase discovery. Two opt-in plaintiffs in Jibowu also opted into Babbitt.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal district court may transfer a civil case to another district where it could have been filed when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The party seeking transfer must make a strong showing that transfer is appropriate. Courts weigh several factors, including witness and party convenience, where the events occurred, the ability to compel witnesses to attend, access to evidence, familiarity with the governing law, the plaintiff’s forum choice, and trial efficiency.

The court noted that the parties did not dispute that Jibowu could originally have brought the case in Minnesota because Target is headquartered there. The court also held that a plaintiff seeking transfer does not always have to show changed circumstances. In any event, it found that the growth and development of Babbitt, including its larger collective and advancement to the same discovery stage, satisfied that requirement if one applied.

Court’s analysis

The convenience-of-witnesses factor favored transfer because Plaintiffs identified Target corporate witnesses with potentially material information about Executive Team Leader duties, classifications, compensation, training, and company-wide policies. The convenience-of-parties factor also favored transfer because Plaintiffs requested the move and the court found that transfer would not shift an additional burden to Target.

The location of operative facts weighed against transfer because no plaintiff worked in Minnesota and eight plaintiffs worked at New York stores. The ability to compel unwilling witnesses was neutral because the parties had not shown a predictable difference between the two districts. The governing-law factor was also neutral: although the New York court was more familiar with New York law, the case also involved Illinois law, and federal courts can apply other states’ laws.

The court found that trial efficiency and the interests of justice strongly favored transfer. Although the two conditionally certified collectives had different time periods and did not completely overlap, both cases involved essentially the same type of Target employees, were at the same procedural stage, and required overlapping discovery into Target’s company-wide classification policies and practices. Keeping the cases in separate courts created a significant risk of inconsistent rulings and judgments.

Disposition

Judge Pamela K. Chen granted Plaintiffs’ motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The court ordered that the case be transferred in its entirety to the District of Minnesota. The opinion decided the venue question and did not decide the underlying overtime claims in this order.