Jeschke v. Five Below, Inc.

Background

Tyler G. Jeschke, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Five Below, Inc. under the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging that his former employer discriminated against him because of his race. The opinion states that Jeschke resides in Binghamton, New York, and was employed in Johnson City, New York, both in Broome County. The opinion also states that Jeschke alleged Five Below was headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The court said the allegations could also be understood as asserting a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law prohibiting employment discrimination. Because Jeschke was proceeding without a lawyer, the court considered the substance of his allegations rather than relying only on the claim label used in the complaint.

Venue analysis

For the New York State Human Rights Law claim, the court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. It concluded that venue was proper in the Northern District of New York because the alleged discrimination likely occurred at the store where Jeschke worked in Broome County. The court also stated that the Northern District was a proper venue for all claims.

For any Title VII claim, the court explained that federal law permits venue where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, where the plaintiff would have worked absent the alleged discrimination, or, in some circumstances, where the employer’s principal office is located. Based on the allegations, the court concluded that all federal districts in New York, including the Southern District, were proper venues for a Title VII claim. It nevertheless concluded that the New York State Human Rights Law claim could be brought only in the Northern District.

Transfer decision

Even when venue is proper, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) allows a federal court to transfer a case to another proper district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered factors including the location of the events, witnesses, documents, and evidence; the parties’ convenience; the plaintiff’s choice of forum; trial efficiency; and the overall interest of justice.

The court found that transfer to the Northern District was appropriate because the underlying events occurred there, relevant documents and other evidence were likely located there, and witnesses were likely located there. It gave Jeschke’s choice of the Southern District less weight because he did not reside there and the complaint alleged no connection to that district.

Disposition

The court ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. It stated that the order closed the case in the Southern District and that any decision on whether Jeschke could continue without prepaying fees would be made by the transferee court. The court directed that no summons issue from the Southern District. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.