Rafi v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rafi v. Novartis, Judge Swain transferred the employment-discrimination case from New York to Massachusetts because venue was proper there.
Syed K. Rafi and the defendants are affected because the action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of Massachusetts. The transferee court will decide whether Rafi may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Rafi v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Syed K. Rafi, representing himself, alleged that Novartis did not hire him for a Cambridge, Massachusetts position because of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. He asserted claims under federal employment-discrimination laws and state law.
The court explained that the employment events occurred in Massachusetts and that the job was located there. It concluded that Massachusetts was a proper venue for the Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims, while noting that it was unclear whether New York was a proper venue for the Title VII claim.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under federal venue statutes. The Southern District of New York case was closed, and the transferee court was left to decide whether Rafi could proceed without paying fees in advance.
The detailed version
- Rafi v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-03387
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
Syed K. Rafi, who resides in Falls Church, Virginia, brought the action without a lawyer against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and other defendants. He alleged that he was not hired for a position with Novartis Biomedical Research Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts, because of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. He invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state law.
Venue analysis
Venue is the legally proper place for a case to proceed. The court explained that Title VII has a special venue rule allowing an employment-discrimination case to be brought where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, where the person would have worked but for the alleged discrimination, or, in limited circumstances, where the employer has its principal office.
The court found that the District of Massachusetts was a proper venue for Rafi’s Title VII claim because he applied for a position in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is in that district. Rafi apparently filed in New York because the defendant’s parent company had its principal office there. The court stated that it was not clear whether New York was a proper venue for the Title VII claim because venue was available in Massachusetts.
The court also found that Massachusetts was a proper venue for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Section 1981 claims under the general venue statute because the relevant events occurred there.
Disposition
The court concluded that transfer was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406. It directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The order did not decide whether the alleged discrimination occurred or whether Rafi’s claims would succeed.
The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Rafi could proceed without prepaying filing fees. A summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that district.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.