Waggoner v. Donley

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER granting 10 Motion to Transfer Case to Western District of Oklahoma. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 10/23/2013. cc:counsel (KJA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PADUCAH DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:13-CV-00057-TBR
Plaintiff

GWENDOLYN WAGGONER
v.
ERIC K. FANNING, Acting Secretary
Department of the Air Force

Defendant

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant’s motion to transfer venue to the
Western District of Oklahoma. (Docket No. 10.) Plaintiff, Gwendolyn Waggoner (pro
se) has responded. (Docket No. 12.) This matter is now fully briefed and ripe for
adjudication. For the following reasons, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s motion to
transfer venue to the Western District of Oklahoma.
Plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to retaliation and discrimination on the
basis of her race and sex by her employer (Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma). She has
filed a decision of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission noting her
right to sue. Defendant argues the Western District of Kentucky is not the proper venue
for this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f)(3). 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f)(3)
states:
(3) Each United States district court and each United States court
of a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have
jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter. Such an
action may be brought in [1] any judicial district in the State in
Page 1 of 4

which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been
committed, [2] in the judicial district in which the employment
records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered,
or [3] 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. § 2000(e)-5(f)(3). “This statutory scheme indicates that Congress intended to
limit venue in Title VII cases to those jurisdictions concerned with the alleged
discrimination.” Darby v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274, 277 (D.D.C.
2002). Only one of Title VII’s venue provisions must be satisfied for venue to be
proper. Turnley v. Banc of America Inv. Servs. Inc., 576 F. Supp. 2d 204, 212 (D. Mass.
2008).
Plaintiff does not appear to address the substance of Defendant’s arguments for
why venue is not proper in the Western District of Kentucky in her lengthy Response.1
(Docket No. 12.) The closest Plaintiff comes to addressing the actual substance of
Defendant’s arguments is on Page 5 and 7 of her Response. (Docket No. 12.) On Page
5, Plaintiff argues:
(5) The property in which the Agency alleges to have/hold
concerning administration of my case can and has been accessed
electronically as the Agency has substantial contracts in
approximately every state of the United States and has practiced
doing business in this State not only with me on several occasions
Plaintiff moves the Court to keep venue of this case in the Western District of Kentucky because she did
not “receive correct service of the Agency’s Motion to Transfer Venue.” (Docket No. 12, Page 1.) However,
the record reflects that Plaintiff received a copy of the motion with the proper certificate of service.
1

Page 2 of 4

but an array of business to include their malicious and intentional
harm of directing my return to Oklahoma to their hostile work
environment on the pretense of wholeness and the pretext that the
Agency was doing me a favor instead of the reality and fact that
somewhere they were negligent and erred in their procedures
causing harm to me mentally and physically and damage to my
ability to continue in federal service reflecting on my future
employment and enjoyment of life.
(Docket No. 12, Page 5.) On Page 7, Plaintiff argues:
Furthermore, all the Agency witnesses are not located in Oklahoma
but are accessible in other states of the United States through the
“entity” of said agency/defendant. If the defendant is allowed this
access then so should I be allowed the same in the jurisdiction of
Kentucky District Courts.
(Docket No. 12, Page 7.) The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive.
The Court agrees with Defendant that the Western District of Kentucky is not
the statutorily correct venue for this action. The alleged discriminatory conduct did not
occur in Kentucky.

The relevant records are not maintained or administered in

Kentucky.2 Finally, Plaintiff has not claimed in her Complaint that she “would have
worked” in Kentucky, “but for the alleged unlawful employment practice.”3 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000(e)-5(f)(3).
Defendant requests the case be transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The Court finds this
action could have been brought in the Western District of Oklahoma and the transfer of

Moreover, as Defendant noted, most of the potential witnesses are not located in Kentucky. (Docket No.
10, Page 3.)
3 “4. Plaintiff sought employment from the defendant or was employed by the defendant at . . . Jackson,
Oklahoma 73523.” (Docket No. 1, Complaint, Page 2.)
2

Page 3 of 4

this case would “be in the interest of justice.”4 28 U.S.C. 1406(a). Accordingly, the
Court will GRANT Defendant’s motion and transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date:

cc:

October 23, 2013

Counsel

Gwendolyn Waggoner
805 Oak Hurst Court
Hopkinsville KY 42240

While this action also could be brought in Washington, D.C. (where the official records are maintained), the
Court agrees with the Defendant that Oklahoma is a more proper or logical venue. Notably, Plaintiff did not
request, in the alternative, that the case be transferred to Washington, D.C. rather than Oklahoma.
4

Page 4 of 4