Vukic v. Universal Protection Service LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Vukic v. Universal Protection Service LLC, Judge McMahon transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York because Queens was the proper venue.
Indira Vukic's employment-discrimination and retaliation action was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of New York. The transferee court was left to decide whether she could proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Vukic v. Universal Protection Service LLC, Indira Vukic, representing herself, accused her former employer of discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, and religion. She brought claims under Title VII, a federal workplace-discrimination law, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York's Human Rights Law.
The court said the Southern District of New York was a proper venue for the Title VII claims because the alleged events occurred in Queens County. But the court said venue for the § 1981 claims did not appear proper there because the alleged events occurred in Queens and the defendant's alleged location was in Pennsylvania.
Judge McMahon transferred the entire action to the Eastern District of New York under the federal transfer statute, citing the location of the events and likely witnesses and documents. The court closed the case in the Southern District, directed the clerk to transfer it, and denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.
The detailed version
- Vukic v. Universal Protection Service LLC · No. 1:20-cv-00646
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
Indira Vukic, appearing without a lawyer, sued Universal Protection Service LLC. She alleged that her former employer discriminated and retaliated against her because of her race, color, and religion. Her claims arose under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law.
The complaint concerned events at Vukic's place of employment in Flushing, Queens County, New York. The opinion states that Vukic was a resident of Queens County. It also states that Vukic asserted that the defendant was located in Conshohocken, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.
Venue Analysis
For the Title VII claims, the court explained that federal law allows an employment-discrimination claim to be filed in the district where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, where the plaintiff would have worked absent the alleged unlawful practice, or, in certain circumstances, where the defendant has its principal office. Because the alleged events occurred in Queens County, the court concluded that the Southern District of New York was a proper venue for Vukic's Title VII claims.
The court applied the general federal venue statute to the § 1981 claims. It stated that Vukic did not allege that a defendant resided or was subject to jurisdiction in the Southern District of New York, or that events supporting the § 1981 claims occurred there. Because the claims arose in Queens County, which is in the Eastern District of New York, venue for those claims appeared proper in the Eastern District.
Transfer Decision
The court also considered whether to transfer the whole action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court stated that it could order a transfer on its own initiative and considered the circumstances as a whole.
The court found transfer appropriate because all events underlying Vukic's claims occurred in Queens County, in the Eastern District of New York. It also stated that relevant documents and witnesses were likely located in that district. The court therefore transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Disposition
The clerk was directed to mail the order to Vukic, note service on the docket, and transfer the action. The transferee court was to decide whether Vukic could continue without paying filing fees. The Southern District court directed that no summons issue and stated that the order closed the case there. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.