Harris v. Wormuth

Background

Kario D. Harris, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Christine E. Wormuth in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Army. Harris alleged claims under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The claims arose from events while Harris was employed by the U.S. Army at U.S. Army Garrison Yongsan in Korea.

Harris alleged that a workplace conflict in 2016 involved race- and color-based discrimination. He also alleged that a 2018 downgrade in a civilian-service award was retaliation for reporting alleged fraud. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled for the U.S. Army, and its appellate body affirmed that decision. Harris then filed this federal case.

Third Amended Complaint

Harris filed a Third Amended Complaint without the court’s permission while Wormuth’s motion to dismiss or transfer was under submission. After the court ordered Harris to explain why the filing should not be stricken, Harris sought permission to amend and said he wanted to add recent developments.

The court concluded that amendment was not appropriate at that point because Wormuth had not consented, the motion had been pending for several months, and allowing amendment would require a new motion and further delay the venue decision. The court therefore struck the Third Amended Complaint without prejudice to Harris’s ability to seek leave to amend in the future, including in the court receiving the transferred case.

Venue Analysis

Wormuth argued that venue was improper in the Northern District of California and asked the court either to dismiss the case or transfer it to the Eastern District of Virginia. Venue means the proper geographic federal court for a case.

Because the case included a Title VII claim, the court applied Title VII’s special venue rule to all claims. That rule allows an employment-discrimination case in the district where the challenged employment practice occurred, where the relevant employment records are maintained, or where the plaintiff would have worked absent the alleged unlawful practice. If none of those locations is available in the United States, the case may be brought where the defendant’s principal office is located.

The court found that the challenged employment practices occurred in Korea, not California. Interviews and other contacts occurring after the challenged employment events did not establish venue, and the location of Harris’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission proceedings did not determine where the employment practices occurred.

The court also found that the relevant employment records were maintained in Korea. Harris’s arguments about electronic access and unidentified record locations did not show that the records were located in the Northern District of California. Finally, the court found no indication that Harris would have worked in California absent the alleged unlawful practices. Because the first three venue categories pointed to Korea, the court determined that the applicable U.S. venue was where the Army maintained its principal office: Arlington, Virginia, in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may dismiss a case filed in the wrong venue or, in the interest of justice, transfer it to a district where it could have been brought. The court concluded that transfer was in the interest of justice.

The court granted Wormuth’s motion and ordered the action transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. It also struck Harris’s Third Amended Complaint without prejudice to his ability to seek leave to amend in the transferee court. The opinion addressed venue and the attempted amendment; it did not decide the underlying discrimination or retaliation claims.