Dupree v. Behaviorally

Background

Danielle DuPree filed this self-represented action against Behaviorally. She asserted employment discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wage claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and state-law claims.

The court had previously transferred the case to the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Before the case was transmitted to that court, DuPree filed a letter opposing the transfer. She argued that New York was a proper venue because she lived in New York and worked remotely from her New York apartment for Behaviorally, which she described as a New Jersey employer. The court treated her letter as a motion asking it to reconsider the transfer.

Venue analysis

For Title VII claims, venue may be proper where the alleged employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, where the employee would have worked absent the alleged unlawful practice, or, in certain circumstances, where the employer has its principal office. For the Fair Labor Standards Act and state-law claims, the general venue statute allows suit where a defendant resides, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or, in limited circumstances, where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

The court explained that DuPree’s assertion that she worked remotely in Queens meant that the Southern District of New York, as well as other federal districts in New York, could be proper venues for her Title VII claims. The court also stated that the District of New Jersey was an appropriate venue for those claims because Behaviorally was located there and employment records were presumably there.

The court reached a different conclusion about the Fair Labor Standards Act and state-law claims. Because Behaviorally did not reside in the Southern District of New York and the relevant events occurred either in New Jersey or in Queens—which is in the Eastern District of New York—the Southern District of New York was not a proper venue for those claims. The court stated that those claims appeared properly venued in both the District of New Jersey and the Eastern District of New York.

Transfer and ruling

The court further considered the statute allowing transfer even when the original venue is proper, when transfer would promote convenience and the interests of justice. It identified factors including the convenience of witnesses and parties, the location of events, evidence and documents, the parties’ relative means, the applicable law, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, trial efficiency, and the overall interests of justice.

The court found that transfer to New Jersey was appropriate because at least some underlying events occurred there, Behaviorally was located there, and relevant documents, evidence, and witnesses were likely there. It also gave less weight to DuPree’s choice of the Southern District of New York because she did not reside in that district and her complaint did not allege a connection to it.

The court held that DuPree had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or factual matters. It denied her motion for reconsideration. It amended the earlier transfer order so that the transfer rested on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the convenience-and-justice transfer provision, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), the improper-venue transfer provision. The action was closed in the Southern District of New York. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.