Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-3_04-cv-00654/USCOURTS-almd-3_04-cv-00654-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

LEROY BOND, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 3:04cv654-T

INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, ) WO

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Leroy Bond (“Bond”), a resident of Columbus,

Georgia, brings this federal action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging

that his employer, Interstate Hotels and Resorts, doing

business as the Columbus Airport Hampton Inn, discriminated

against him on the basis of his race (African-American) and

retaliated against him for filing a complaint with the Equal

Opportunity Commission by denying him promotions and giving

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 1 of 8
1. Shortly after filing the original complaint,

plaintiff’s counsel withdrew from the case and Angela Hill,

Esq., entered an appearance on Bond’s behalf.

2

a Caucasian employee a higher salary. The court has

jurisdiction of these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

In his original complaint (doc. # 1), Bond alleged that

the incident occurred at a Hampton Inn in Alabama.1 However,

during an April 11, 2005, status conference, plaintiff’s

counsel notified the court that she had been misinformed

regarding the location of the incident and that the acts of

discrimination and retaliation occurred at a Hampton Inn in

Columbus, Georgia. (Doc. # 18.) The court granted Bond

leave to file an amended complaint with the correct

information. (Id.) 

On April 19, 2005, Bond filed an amended complaint (doc.

# 20) and a motion to change venue (doc. # 19). On April

21, 2005, this court ordered the defendant to show cause why

the motion to change venue should not be granted. (Doc. #

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 2 of 8
2. On April 22, 2005, the defendant filed a response

(doc. # 25) in which it states it does not oppose

plaintiff’s motion to transfer. 

3

22.)2 On April 21, 2005, the defendant filed a motion to

dismiss, or alternatively, a motion to transfer venue to the

United States Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

(Doc. # 23.) Both parties assert that this court is not the

proper venue because Bond is a resident of Columbus,

Georgia, and the alleged incidents occurred at the Columbus

Airport Hampton Inn. 

Upon consideration of the parties’ motions to transfer

venue, the court concludes that the interest of justice

requires that this case be transferred to the United States

Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

II. DISCUSSION

The court has jurisdiction over this matter by virtue of

28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question jurisdiction. Venue,

however, is not proper in this district. Venue for civil

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 3 of 8
4

actions alleging employment discrimination is governed by

Title VII, which provides in part:

“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 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. § 2000e-5(f)(3). This provision controls over the

general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). See Kravec v.

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 579 F.Supp. 619, 622-23 (N.D.

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 4 of 8
3. In addition to asserting Title VII and § 1981

claims, Bond also asserts that his claims are brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, section 1983 is not

applicable in this case because the defendant is not a state

actor.

4. Another possible venue is the district in which the

defendant has his principal office. In this case, the

defendant’s principal place of business is in the Eastern

District of Virginia. This provision is only applicable

when the defendant cannot be found in any of the other

judicial districts. Because there is no such allegation in

this case, the court will not address this possibility.

5

Ga. 1983). In addition, when a plaintiff brings a Title VII

action under both 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 2000e-5, the

narrower venue provision of § 2000e-5(f)(3) controls.3 Id.

at 622 (holding that the more specific venue provisions of

Title VII supersede other claims).

In this case, the alleged incidents of discrimination

and retaliation occurred at the Columbus Airport Hampton Inn

in Columbus, Georgia. In addition, the employment records

relevant to Bond’s case are maintained and administered in

Columbus, Georgia. Venue is therefore proper in any of the

judicial districts of the State of Georgia.4 It is clear,

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 5 of 8
6

therefore, that venue is not proper in the Middle District

of Alabama. 

The defendant argues that this court should dismiss this

action because venue is improper. In the alternative, the

defendant argues that this case should be transferred to the

Middle District of Georgia, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of

parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a

district court may transfer any civil action to any other

district or division where it might have been brought.”

However, § 1404(a) presupposes that venue is proper in the

district where the suit is originally filed. 15 Charles

Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Practice & Procedure §

3842. Because the court has concluded that venue is

improper in this district, the court may not transfer this

case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Nonetheless, transfer of this case is proper pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which provides: 

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 6 of 8
7

The district court of a district in which

is filed a case laying venue in the wrong

division or district shall dismiss, or if

it be in the interest of justice, transfer

such case to any district or division in

which it could have been brought. 

In this case, there is no question that venue would be

proper in the Middle District of Georgia. As previously

noted, all the allegedly discriminatory and retaliatory

actions occurred at the Columbus Airport Hotel which is

located in Columbus, Georgia. The majority of witnesses and

employment records are also located in Georgia. Columbus is

located within the jurisdiction of the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Furthermore, the parties agree that the Middle District of

Georgia is the more appropriate venue. Therefore, the court

concludes that this case is due to be transferred to the

Middle District of Georgia.

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 7 of 8
III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this case be and is

hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States Court for the Middle

District of Georgia.

The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to take appropriate

steps to effect the transfer.

DONE, this the 25th day of April, 2005.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:04-cv-00654-MHT-CSC Document 27 Filed 04/25/05 Page 8 of 8