Thompson v. Optum United Health Care

Background

Plaintiff Tiffany Sherell Thompson, a resident of the Bronx, New York, filed this pro se (self-represented) action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. She asserts claims under three federal employment discrimination statutes: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin); (2) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA," prohibiting age-based discrimination); and (3) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA," prohibiting discrimination based on disability). The court construed her complaint as including an ADA claim because she alleged discrimination based on disability or perceived disability, even though she did not explicitly invoke the ADA.

Thompson named three defendants: Optum United Health Care, Optum/United Health Group, and United Health Care Corporate Headquarters. In her complaint, she stated that all three defendants are located in Minnesota, and she alleged that the employment or sought employment at issue was in Minnesota.

Thompson had not paid the filing fees and had not submitted a completed application to proceed without prepaying fees (a procedure that allows low-income litigants to file without paying upfront costs). She included only the first page of such an application with her complaint.

Venue Analysis

Title VII and ADA Claims

The court applied 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), the special venue provision for Title VII claims, which is also incorporated by reference for ADA claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Under this provision, a suit may be filed in: (1) the judicial district where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred; (2) where the relevant employment records are maintained; (3) where the plaintiff would have worked but for the discrimination; or (4) where the defendant's principal office is located, if the defendant is not found in any of the above districts.

Thompson alleged that the employment location was in Minnesota. The court noted that, while she did not specifically identify where the unlawful practice occurred, where records are maintained, or where the defendants' principal offices are located, all of those locations would also likely be in Minnesota based on the complaint's allegations. Minnesota constitutes a single federal judicial district — the District of Minnesota. Thompson alleged nothing connecting any of these venues to the Southern District of New York. The court therefore concluded that the District of Minnesota, not the Southern District of New York, is the proper venue for her Title VII and ADA claims.

ADEA Claims

The court applied the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), to Thompson's ADEA claims, citing case law from the Southern District of New York holding that the ADEA does not have its own special venue provision. Under § 1391(b), venue is proper in: (1) a district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in that state; (2) a district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) any district where any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction, if no other district is available.

For entities such as corporations, residence for venue purposes means any district where the entity would be subject to personal jurisdiction. The court found that all defendants appear to reside in the District of Minnesota based on Thompson's own allegations. Thompson alleged no facts suggesting any defendant resides in New York. Additionally, the relevant events appear to have taken place in Minnesota, not in the Southern District of New York. The court concluded that under both § 1391(b)(1) and § 1391(b)(2), the District of Minnesota — not the Southern District of New York — is the proper venue for the ADEA claims.

Disposition

Because the Southern District of New York is not a proper venue for any of Thompson's claims, the court invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which provides that when a case is filed in the wrong venue, the court shall either dismiss the case or, if in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court determined that transfer, rather than dismissal, was in the interest of justice, and ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to effectuate the transfer and specified that the question of whether Thompson may proceed without prepaying filing fees is to be decided by the transferee court (the District of Minnesota). No summonses were to issue from the Southern District of New York. The case is closed in the Southern District of New York.

The court also certified, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied Thompson permission to appeal without prepaying fees.