John Roe v. City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-04059
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Yanira Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation, Judge McMahon transferred the employment-discrimination case to California because New York was not a proper venue.
Yanira Gonzalez's employment-discrimination action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of California; the Southern District did not decide whether her discrimination or retaliation allegations were valid.
What happened
In Yanira Gonzalez v. Apttus Corporation, Gonzalez, representing herself, alleged that her former employer discriminated and retaliated against her because of her sex, age, and disability under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.
The court found that the relevant events occurred in San Mateo, California, where Gonzalez worked and where Apttus Corporation resides. Gonzalez did not allege that the conduct occurred in New York or that she would have worked there without the alleged discrimination.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon transferred the action to the Northern District of California because venue was improper in the Southern District of New York. The court directed that no summons issue, closed the case, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- John Roe v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04059
- Louis Stanton
- Mar. 12, 2021
Background
Yanira Gonzalez, appearing without a lawyer and having paid the required filing fees, sued Apttus Corporation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and New York State and New York City human-rights laws. She alleged that her former employer discriminated and retaliated against her based on sex, age, and disability.
Venue Analysis
Venue is the proper federal court location for a case. The court explained that Title VII allows an employment-discrimination case to be filed in certain districts connected to the alleged unlawful conduct, relevant employment records, the place where the employee would have worked, or, in some circumstances, the employer's principal office. The Americans with Disabilities Act uses the same venue rule. The court applied the general federal venue rule to Gonzalez's age-discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The court held that the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue. According to the complaint, Gonzalez worked in San Mateo, California, and Apttus Corporation resides there. Gonzalez did not allege that the unlawful employment practices occurred in New York or that she would have worked in New York but for those practices. San Mateo is in the Northern District of California, so the court determined that venue was proper there.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), when venue is improper, a court must either dismiss the case or transfer it to a district where it could properly have been brought. Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The court stated that a summons would not issue from the Southern District of New York and that the order closed that court's case.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.