Warwick v. Schultz

Background

Daniel D. Warwick, proceeding without a lawyer, filed claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged that his former employer, eCornell, discriminated against him because of his disability and age. The defendants named in the caption were Scott Schultz, Reina Martin, and Steve Bayne, whom Warwick identified as eCornell creative department managers. Warwick alleged that he resides in Painted Post, New York, that eCornell is located in Tompkins County, New York, and that the individual defendants reside in Tompkins, Tioga, and Chemung Counties.

Venue Analysis

The court explained that the federal disability and Rehabilitation Act claims could be brought in any federal district in New York under the applicable employment-discrimination venue rules, based on the alleged location of the conduct, employment records, and place where Warwick would have worked. The court stated that the age-discrimination and New York Human Rights Law claims are governed by the general federal venue statute.

For those claims, venue was proper in the Northern District of New York and the Western District of New York because of the alleged residences of the defendants. The court also concluded that venue appeared proper in the Northern District because the alleged discrimination likely occurred at eCornell’s office in Tompkins County. Warwick alleged no facts connecting the action to the Southern District of New York.

The opinion also noted that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act claims must be brought against an eligible employer or other entity, rather than individual defendants. The court did not resolve whether Warwick’s claims against the named defendants could proceed, however, because the order addressed transfer rather than the merits of the claims.

Transfer Decision

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case filed in a proper venue to another proper venue for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court considered the connection of the alleged events to the Northern District, the likely location of documents, evidence, and witnesses, the residence of two named defendants there, and the limited connection between the case and the Southern District. It also gave less weight to Warwick’s choice of the Southern District because he did not reside there and the complaint alleged no connection to that district.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The order closed the Southern District case, stated that a summons would not issue from that court, and left the question of whether Warwick could proceed without prepaying fees to the transferee court. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court transferred the case based on venue and convenience without deciding whether the alleged discrimination occurred or whether Warwick’s claims had merit.