1 UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

: ABDUL K. T AW W AAB, : : Plaintiff, :

: v. : Civil Action No. 08-1894 ( RMU) : VI RGI NIA L I NEN SERVI CE, I

NC., e t al

. , : Dkt. Nos. 3-4

: De fe nd ants
. : :
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is befor e the c ourt on the def endants’ motion to dismiss or, in the alter native, for summary

judgme nt. For the rea sons stated below, the c ourt will transfer this action to the United States District Court for the D istrict of Mary land. I . BA CKGROUND The plaintiff “ was e mploy ed by Virg inia L inen Service as a r oute re prese ntative, or driver, in Ma

ryland.” Me m. in Support of Mot. t o Dismiss and/or for Summ. J . (“D efs.’ Mot.”), Ex. A(“ Gw a ltn e y

Af f. ” ) ¶ 3. Th e “ e nti re ro ute wa s in Ma ry land ,” and

the e ve nts g ivi ngri se to the plaintiff’s c omplaint occurr ed in Mary land. Id. Acc ordingto the plaintiff, on Novembe r 1, 20 06 , h e wa s te rm inate d o n th e ba sis of his ra c e and

in r e ta liatio n f

or his inv olv e me nt i n protec ted ac tivity

in violation of Title VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964, as a mended, see42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Compl. at 4.Th e Cha rg e of Di sc ri min a tio n f

ile d w ith the Eq ua l E mpl oy

me nt O pp or

tun ity 1 Commi ssion refe rs only

to discrimination based on Plaintiff’s ra ce. SeeGwaltney Aff., E x . 1 (Charg e of D iscrimination, No. 537-2007-00936)

. 2 In Fe bruar

y 2007, the plaintiff filed a formal Char g e of D iscrimination with the Equal Employ ment Opportunity

Commi ssion (“EEOC”)

. Id . at 4; Gwaltney Aff., E x . 1 (Charg e of 1 Discrimination). The matter wa s not resolved, Compl. at 4, and the EEO C issued a Notice of Right to Sue on J uly

24, 2008. Gwantne y

Aff., E x . 2 (Notice of Right to Sue) at 2. On Oc tob e r 2 4, 20 08 , th e pla int if f f ile d th is e mpl oy

me nt d isc ri min a tio n a c tio n a g a ins t Virg inia L inen Service , Inc., Assistant Gene ral Mana g er Chuck Miller, a nd Reg ional Vice Pr e sid e nt L e e Gw a ltn e y . Co mpl . at 1 ( date sta mp) ; seeGw a ltn e y

Af f. ¶ 2 . With h is pr o s e complaint, the plaintiff submitted an Application to P roce ed Without P repa y ment of F ees a

nd Affida vit. SeeDkt. #2. The c ourt g rante d the Application on Oc tober 30, 2008, id. at 2, and on October 31, 2008, the Clerk of Court off icially filed these doc uments and ente red the m onto the elec tronic docke t. SeeDkt. #1-2. I I . DI SCUS SI ON A. Plain tif

f F ile d H is C om pla int Tim e ly The de fenda

nts argue that the plaintiff f ailed to file his Complaint withi n 90 day s after the EEOC issued its Notice of Rig ht to Sue. SeeDef s.’ Mot. at 3-4. The court will deny the motion on this ground. I t is presumed that the rig ht-to-sue letter was mailed on the same date of its issuance. See Anderson v. Local 201 Re inforcing Rodmen , 886 F. Supp. 94, 97 (D.D .C. 1995). The Notice advises that a la

wsuit “must be filed WI THI N 90 DAYS fr om [ the claimant’ s] receipt of th[e] Notice.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. to Dism iss and/or for Summ. J . (“Pl.’s Opp’n” ), Ex. B (Notice of3

Rig ht t o Su e ) ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . T he pla int if f e sta bli sh e s th a t he re c e ive d th e No tic e on July 26 , 2 00 8. Pl. ’s Op p’ n ¶

1 & Ex. B . B y

the c ourt ’s c a lc ulatio n, the pla int if f’ s f ili ngde a dli ne fe ll on October

24, 2008, the date on which the Clerk of Court rec eived the c omplaint and Application to Procee d Wit hout Prepay ment of F ees. In case s where a plaintiff r equests leave to proc eed w ithout pay ment of the filingfee , ty pically there is a lapse of

time betwee n submissi on of complaint to the Clerk a nd its official filing a nd entry onto the Court’s elec tronic docke t. The plaintiff “ is not responsible for the administrative delay

associate d with the [c] ourt’s re view of his application to procee d in forma pa up e ris .” Hogue v . Roach , 9 67 F . Su pp . 7 , 8 (D .D .C. 19 97 ); see G uillen v. Nat’l Grange , 955 F . Su pp . 1 44 , 1 45 (D .D .C. 19 97 ) ( fi nd ingthat “ the pr e se ntatio n o f a c omp la int

a c c omp anie d w ith a petition to proce ed in forma pauper is toll s the ninety -day period of limitations contained in the rig ht to sue letter”)

. T h e c o urtc o n c l u d e s th atP l a i n t i f f f i l e d h i s c o mp l a i n tt i m e l y. B. This Matter W

ill Be Transf

erred to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland The de fenda

nts argue that, under

28 U.S.C. § 1391, venue in this dist rict is improper. See De fs .’ Mo t. at 2- 3. Th e c ourt c on c ur s. There is a clea

r pre fer ence for a djudicating employ ment discrimination claims in the judicial district most concerne d with the alleg ed discrimination. Se e Ste bb ins v . S tate Fa rm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. , 413 F.2d 1100, 1102- 03 (D.C. Cir.), cert. de nied , 396 U.S. 895 (1969). Th e pr op e r f

or um f or a dju dic atio n o f s uc h e mpl oy me nt c la ims is d e te rm ine d b y re fe re nc e to T itl e VI I ’s venue provision. See42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f) (3). It provides that an e mploy ment4

dis c ri min a tio n a c tio n ma

y be br ou g ht: in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawf ul employ ment pr a c tic e is al le g e d to hav e be e n c omm itt e d, in t he jud ic ia l di str ic t in which the e mploy

ment rec ords re levant to such pr ac t i ce a re m ai n t ained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the ag g rieve d person would have wor ked but for the alleg ed unlawf ul employ ment pract i ce , b u t if the responde nt is not found within any such district, such an action m ay be brought within the judicial district in which the re spondent has his principal of fice

. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (3). There is no alleg ation that any unlawful e mploy

ment prac tice wa s committed in the District of Columbia, that releva nt employ

ment rec ords ar e maintained or administered in the District of Columbia, that the plaintiff worke d or would have worke d for Vir g inia L inen Service , Inc. in the District of Columbia, or that the c ompany maintains its principal office in the District of Columbia. Se e ge ne ra lly Compl. The defe ndants establish that both Mr. Gwa ltney and Mr. Miller work for

Virg inia L inen Service , Inc. in Mary land. Gwa ltney

Aff. ¶ 2. Mr. Gwa ltney resides in Mar

yland; Mr. Miller re cently moved from Ea ston, Maryland to Alexandria, Virg inia. Id. Fur ther, the r ecor ds shows that the plaintiff’s for mer route was in Mar

yland, and that the events g iving r ise to the complaint occ urre d in Maryland. Id. ¶ 3; Compl. at 1-3. Even if “ much if not most of the business of Virg inia L inen Service [] [i s] done” in Washington, D.C., Pl.’s Opp’n ¶ 2, the court c oncludes that ve nue is not proper in this di strict. Ba sed on the c urre nt
rec ord, it appea

rs that venue is appropriate in the District of Mar yland, not in the District of Columbi a. At this juncture the cour

t either may

dismiss this action or, in the intere st of justice, transfe r the a ction “to any district or division in which it could have bee n broug ht.” 28 U.S.C. §5

14 06 (a ). As sumin g wi tho ut d e c idi ngthat th e pla int if f s tate s v ia

ble c la ims un de r T itl e VI Ia g a ins t the named de fenda

nts, the court will transfe r this action to the United States District Court for the District of Mar

yland. See, e .g., Elezovic v . England , No. 03-0131, 2003 WL22383583, at *2 (D.D.C. Oc t. 20, 2003) (tra nsfer ringpursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) the Title VI Iaction filed by employ ee of

the National Na

val Medica l Center in B ethesda , Mary land to the District of Maryland). I I I . CONCL USI ON The c ourt conc ludes that the plaintiff timely filed his complaint, that venue in this district is improper, and that transfe r of this ac tion is i n the intere st of justice. Acc ording ly , the cour t will deny the def endants’ motion to dismiss for imprope r venue and timeliness, and will transfe r this action to the United States District Court for the District of Mary land. Resolution of the
rema ining c laims is left for the tra nsfer ee c ourt. An Orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

RI CARDO M. URBI

NA Un i t edS t at es Di s tri ctJ u d ge DATE: F ebrua

ry 1, 2009