United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Northern Division
NACHICA M. THOMAS, Plaintiff,
v.
ROAD & RAIL SERVICES, Defendant.
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WALLACE CAPEL, JR. CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Nachica M. Thomas (“Thomas” or
“Plaintiff”) initiated this employment
discrimination action on December 21, 2018. In the instant
Complaint (Doc. 1, filed December 21, 2018), Thomas seeks
relief for actions which have occurred at her current
employer, Road & Rail Services, in Lincoln, Alabama. Doc.
1 at 2.
Upon
review of the complaint, the court finds that this case
should be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1406.[1]
II.
DISCUSSION
Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's special venue
provision provides, in relevant part:
Such an action may be brought in any judicial district in the
State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to
have been committed, in the judicial district in which the
employment records relevant to such practice are maintained
and administered, or in the judicial district in which the
aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged
unlawful employment practice, but if the respondent is not
found within any such district, such an action may be brought
within the judicial district in which the respondent has his
principal office. For purposes of sections 1404 and 1406 of
Title 28, the judicial district in which the respondent has
his principal office shall in all cases be considered a
district in which the action might have been brought.
42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (West). It is well-settled
law in this Circuit that this provision, rather than the
general venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1391, governs venue in
Title VII actions. See Pinson v. Rumsfeld, 192
Fed.Appx. 811, 817 (11th Cir. 2006) (“Title VII claims
are governed by § 2000e-5(f)(3), and these venue
provisions set forth the exclusive venues for Title VII
claims [. . .]”); Kravec v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool
Co., 579 F.Supp. 619, 622 (N.D.Ga. 1983) (The
“general venue statute, 28 USC § 1391, did not
provide an additional place of venue where the terms of
§ 2000e-5(f)(3) were not met, ” and upon reviewing
the “clear language of § 2000e-5(f)(3)” the
court found that “the intent of Congress to limit venue
to the judicial districts concerned with the alleged
discrimination seems clear.'”) The law further
provides that when a case is filed “laying venue in the
wrong division or district” the court may, “if it
be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any
district . . . where it could have been brought.” 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses,
in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any
civil action to any other district . . . where it might have
been brought[.]”)
Here,
Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII alleging that she
was discriminated against based upon her race and gender, as
well as a claim of retaliation related to reports made to
management. Doc. 1 at 2, 5-6. Plaintiff states that the
location of Defendant Road & Rail Services' principal
office is in Louisville, Kentucky, and that the alleged
illegal activity took place at Defendant's Lincoln,
Alabama, facility. Doc. 1 at 1-2. Lincoln, Alabama, is
located within the jurisdiction of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Thus, the
unlawful employment practices about which Thomas complains
occurred in the Northern District of Alabama. Additionally,
the employment records relevant to such practice are
maintained and administered within the Northern District of
Alabama, and a majority of material witnesses and evidence
associated with those claims relevant to Thomas'
allegations are located in the Northern District of Alabama.
Therefore, it is clear from the face of the complaint that
the proper venue for this cause of action is the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Under these circumstances, the claims asserted by Thomas are
beyond the venue of this court.
In
light of the foregoing, the court concludes that, in the
interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties,
this case should be transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama for review and
disposition.[2]
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this
case be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. §
1406(a).
It is
further
ORDERED
that on or before April 23, 2019, Plaintiff
may file an objection to the Recommendation. Any objection
must specifically identify the findings in the Recommendation
to which Plaintiff objects. Frivolous, conclusive or general
objections will not be considered by the District Court.
Plaintiff ...