The opinion of the court was delivered by: EMMET SULLIVAN, District Judge
This matter is before the Court on consideration of defendant's
motion to dismiss or for transfer of venue. Having considered the
motion, plaintiff's opposition, and the entire record, the Court
will transfer this action to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.
Plaintiff is a former employee of the United States Department
of Treasury, having worked at the Internal Revenue Service's
Atlanta Submission Processing Center in Chamblee, Georgia. Def.'s
Mot., Ex. 4 (Klein Decl.), ¶ 4. He alleges, generally, that
defendant violated regulations and procedures in effecting his
termination. It appears that plaintiff raises an employment
discrimination claim, charging that defendant unlawfully
terminated his employment on the bases of race (Caucasian), color
(white), and sex (male). See Compl. at 4 (citing
42 U.S.C. § 2000e as a basis for the Court's jurisdiction) & Ex. (EEOC
Decision dated October 13, 2003). II. DISCUSSION
Defendant moves to dismiss this action on the ground that this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In the alternative,
defendant moves to transfer this action to the Northern District
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has its own venue provision.
In relevant part, the act provides that an employment
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
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). By this standard, the Northern
District of Georgia clearly is the proper venue for adjudication
of this action.
Plaintiff was employed in Chamblee, Georgia, and allegedly was
terminated because of defendant's unlawful employment practice.
See Klein Decl., ¶ 4. He would have continued to work in
Chamblee, Georgia but for defendant's unlawful employment
practice. In addition, defendant demonstrated that relevant
employment records and witnesses are located in Georgia. Id.,
Plaintiff's arguments for pursuing this action in the District
of Columbia are not persuasive. The fact that the United States
Department of Treasury has its headquarters in this district is
not controlling. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (allowing action
to be brought in the district of where the employer has his
principal office, but only if the employer is not found within
any other district). There is a clear preference for adjudication
of employment discrimination claims in the judicial district most
concerned with the alleged discrimination. See Stebbins v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 413 F.2d 1100, 1102-03 (D.C.
Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 895 (1969). In addition, to the
extent plaintiff alleges that defendant failed to follow
procedures properly, the Court notes that these acts or failures
to act necessarily occurred in Georgia.
The Court concludes that this district is not the proper venue
for adjudication of plaintiff's employment discrimination claim,
and that transfer of this action to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia is proper.*fn1 An
Order consistent ...