Riese v. LI Child and Family Development Services Inc.

Background

Ida Riese filed this action without a lawyer, asserting employment-discrimination claims under Title VII, the federal law that prohibits certain forms of employment discrimination. She sued LI Child and Family Development Services Inc., identified in the opinion as her former employer. Riese alleged that the employer was located in Patchogue, Suffolk County, New York, and that the events underlying her claims, including her termination, occurred there.

The opinion noted that the transferee court might construe Riese’s factual allegations as also asserting claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. The court did not decide whether those claims were actually pleaded or whether they would succeed.

Venue and Transfer

The court explained that Title VII claims may be brought in a district where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, or where the person would have worked absent the alleged unlawful practice. Based on the allegations, the court concluded that the Southern District and the Eastern District of New York were both proper venues for the Title VII claims.

For possible state-law claims, the court applied the general federal venue rules and concluded that the Eastern District was a proper venue because the employer and the events were in Suffolk County. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer an action to another proper federal district for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court found transfer appropriate because the underlying events occurred in Suffolk County, the defendant was located there, and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be there.

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. It stated that the transferee court would decide whether Riese could proceed without prepaying fees, ordered that summonses would not issue from the Southern District, and stated that the action was closed in that court. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order transferred the case without deciding the merits of Riese’s discrimination claims.