Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-01194
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation, Judge McMahon transferred the employment-discrimination case to California because venue was improper in New York.
Yanira Gonzalez's employment-discrimination case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California; the order closed the case in New York.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation, Yanira Gonzalez, representing herself, sued her former employer under federal, state, and city employment-discrimination laws, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on sex, age, and disability.
The court found that the claims arose in San Mateo, California, where Gonzalez worked and where Apttus Corporation resides, rather than in New York. Because venue was improper in the Southern District of New York, the court transferred the case to the Northern District of California instead of dismissing it.
Judge McMahon directed the clerk to transfer the case, ordered that no summons issue from the New York court, and closed the case there. She also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation · No. 1:21-cv-01194
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 10, 2021
Background
Yanira Gonzalez, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against Apttus Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. She alleged that her former employer discriminated and retaliated against her because of her sex, age, and disability. Gonzalez paid the filing fees and stated that she now resides in Brooklyn, New York.
Venue analysis
Venue is the legally proper location for a lawsuit. The court explained that Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act generally allow an employment case to be brought where the alleged employment violations occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, or where the plaintiff would have worked absent the alleged violations. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act uses the general federal venue rules, which include the district where a substantial part of the events occurred or where the defendant resides under the applicable rules.
The court found that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue. According to the complaint, Gonzalez worked in San Mateo, California, her claims arose there, and Apttus Corporation resides there. Gonzalez did not allege that the challenged employment practices occurred in New York or that she would have worked there but for those practices. San Mateo is in the Northern District of California.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when venue is improper, a court must either dismiss the action or transfer it to a district where venue is proper. Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The clerk was directed to transfer the action, no summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that district. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, even though Gonzalez had paid the fees for the action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.