Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): *3 (E.D.Pa. Feb. 16, 2005) (same). This court finds that transfers of Title VII actions are thus governed by the well-settled public and private factors relevant to section 1404(a) analysis. See Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. However, plaintiffs are correct that the special venue provision must influence the contours of section 1404(a) analysis. The factors expressly identified as a basis for venue under Title VII — the location of the discriminatory act or decision, the location of relevant employment records, and the location where a plaintiff would have worked but for the unlawful employment practice — should therefore be key factors in analyzing the “interests of justice” prong of section 1404(a) analysis. See In re Horseshoe Entertainment, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In addition, a plaintiffs choice of forum is 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii (B) holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii (C) holding that location of relevant employment records should be given significance because it was expressly stated in the title vii venue provision (D) holding that plaintiffs claims under 42 usc  1981 are also governed by the special venue provision of title vii (E) recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap
Output (English): recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap