Hickman v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Shena Hickman, who was representing herself, sued Meta Platforms, Inc. She alleged that Meta discriminated and retaliated against her because of her race, color, sex, national origin, and age, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Meta was the only defendant.

Hickman alleged that she worked for Meta in Burlingame, California, from October 2017 through October 2018. She also appeared to allege that retaliation continued for seven years in California, Florida, and New York, including in the Southern District of New York. The opinion described the complaint as difficult to understand.

Venue analysis

The court explained that Title VII permits an employment case to be filed where the alleged employment violation occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, or where the person would have worked absent the alleged violation. The court found that the Northern District of California was a proper venue because the alleged discrimination occurred in San Mateo County and the relevant employment records were likely maintained at Meta’s office there. The court said that Florida and the Southern District of New York might also be proper venues for the Title VII claims to the extent events in those places were part of the alleged unlawful employment practice.

The court explained that the ADEA claims were governed by the general federal venue statute. It found venue proper in the Northern District of California because Meta resides there for venue purposes and because a substantial portion of the events appeared to have occurred in San Mateo County. The court also said that Florida could be a proper venue for the ADEA claims.

Transfer ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court concluded that transfer was appropriate because the Northern District of California was where Meta was located, where Hickman had worked, where relevant employment records were maintained, and where many underlying events occurred. The court also reasonably expected witnesses to be located there. It noted that Hickman had filed a prior related action against Meta in that district involving similar claims, but the court did not rely on that earlier case as the sole reason for transfer.

The court therefore transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under Section 1404(a). It directed the clerk to close the case in the Southern District of New York, stated that the transferee court would decide whether Hickman could proceed without prepaying fees, and left her request for volunteer counsel and other motions for that court. The clerk terminated the pending motions in the New York case, and the court certified that an appeal from the transfer order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for such an appeal.