Williams v. UPS
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02404
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Williams v. UPS, Judge Swain transferred the employment-discrimination case from New York to New Jersey because venue was improper.
Michael O. Williams’s case was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey. UPS, Shane, and Sammy (Omar) remain the defendants, and the transferee court will decide whether Williams may proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Williams v. UPS, Michael O. Williams, representing himself, sued UPS, Shane, and Sammy (Omar) over alleged race-based employment discrimination and retaliation. He brought claims under federal and New York laws.
The court found that the alleged unlawful conduct and Williams’s workplace were in Secaucus, New Jersey, and that the case did not belong in the Southern District of New York. It therefore transferred the action to the District of New Jersey.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the transfer under the federal venue law and closed the New York case. She also said the receiving court would decide whether Williams could continue without paying filing fees and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Williams v. UPS · No. 1:24-cv-02404
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 1, 2024
Background
Michael O. Williams, who resides in Queens, New York, filed this action without a lawyer. He sued his former employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and two individuals identified as Shane and Sammy (Omar). He alleged employment discrimination and retaliation based on race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law.
Williams stated that the UPS location where he worked was in Secaucus, New Jersey, and that the events underlying his claims occurred there. The opinion says he did not provide the residences of the two individual defendants.
Venue analysis
Venue is the legally proper federal court location for a case. For Title VII claims, federal law allows a case to be filed where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are kept, where the employee would have worked absent the alleged violation, or, in certain circumstances, where the employer’s principal office is located. The general venue statute permits claims under § 1981 and state law in districts where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, if necessary, where a defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
The court concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York. Nothing in Williams’s filing suggested that the alleged employment practices occurred in New York or that all defendants resided there. Because the claims arose in Secaucus, New Jersey, the court determined that the District of New Jersey was the proper venue.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when transferring it serves the interests of justice. The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of Court was directed to carry out the transfer, and the New York case was closed.
The court stated that the transferee court would decide whether Williams could proceed without prepaying fees. The Southern District of New York ordered that no summons issue from that court. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.