Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 21, 2020

McCray v. GNL

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00807
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
EmploymentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In McCray v. GNL, Judge McMahon transferred the employment-discrimination case to Georgia because New York was not a proper place for it.

Who this affects

Mildred I. McCray's claims were transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Georgia. The transferee court would decide whether she could proceed without prepaying fees.

What happened

McCray v. GNL is a pro se employment-discrimination case brought by Mildred I. McCray under federal laws protecting against workplace discrimination and age discrimination. She alleged that the United States Postal Service and related defendants discriminated against her while she worked in Atlanta, Georgia.

The court ruled that the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue because the events occurred in Atlanta and McCray did not allege that any defendant lived in New York. The court noted that Atlanta is in the Northern District of Georgia, where McCray had previously filed related cases.

Judge McMahon ordered the Clerk to transfer the action to the Northern District of Georgia and closed the case in New York. The transferee court would decide whether McCray could proceed without paying filing fees; no summons would issue from the New York court, and the court denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McCray v. GNL · No. 1:20-cv-00807
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 21, 2020

Background

Mildred I. McCray, proceeding without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. She alleged that defendants discriminated against her while she was employed by the United States Postal Service in Atlanta, Georgia. The named defendants included Postal Service employees in Atlanta and Megan Brennan, identified as the Postmaster General of the United States and employed in Washington, D.C.

Venue analysis

The court explained that Title VII has a specific venue rule allowing an employment-discrimination case to be filed where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained and administered, or where the person would have worked absent the alleged discrimination, subject to the statute's other provisions. The court also explained that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act uses the general federal venue statute, which permits suit where a defendant resides under specified conditions, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where a defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction.

The court concluded that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue under either provision. The alleged events occurred in Atlanta, Georgia, and McCray did not allege that any defendant resided in the Southern District of New York. The court noted that most defendants appeared to reside in Atlanta and that McCray had previously filed three related actions in the Northern District of Georgia concerning her employment with the Postal Service.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia because venue lay there. This was a venue ruling; the opinion did not decide whether McCray's discrimination claims were legally or factually valid.

The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action, mail the order to McCray, and record service on the docket. It stated that the Northern District of Georgia would decide whether McCray could proceed without prepaying fees. The New York court ordered that no summons issue from it and stated that the order closed the case. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.