Islam v. Aziz

Background

Mohammad Islam filed this pro se action asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Because Islam alleged that he was not paid for his work, including overtime wages, the court understood the complaint to also assert claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He sued Abdul Aziz, Ayman Shehata, Edwin Panchane, “Ragin – Dispatch,” and Ramin Islam.

Islam alleged that he sought employment or was employed by the defendants at Luxury Van and Bus and Car Service, located in Long Island City, Queens County, New York. The opinion states that he appeared to allege that all defendants were employed where he was or is employed, but it does not specify where the defendants reside.

Venue analysis

Title VII has a specific venue rule allowing an action in the district where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained and administered, where the person would have worked absent the alleged unlawful practice, or, in some circumstances, where the employer has its principal office. Islam did not specify where those locations were. The court concluded that at least some of them appeared likely to be in Long Island City. Queens County is within the Eastern District of New York, not the Southern District of New York. The court therefore concluded that the Eastern District appeared to be the only proper venue for the Title VII claims.

The claims under Section 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act are governed by the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Islam did not identify the defendants’ residences, so the court could not determine whether venue was proper under the provision concerning defendants’ residence. But the court found that a substantial portion of the events allegedly giving rise to the claims occurred at the Long Island City location. It therefore concluded that the Eastern District was a proper venue for those claims as well.

Transfer and disposition

The court also applied 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found that the underlying events occurred in significant part in Queens County and that relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there. It concluded that the Eastern District appeared to be a more convenient forum and transferred the action there.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Islam could proceed without prepaying fees, that summonses would not issue from the Southern District, and that the order closed the action in that court. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.