Hickman

Hickman v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJune 11, 20254:25-cv-05346California1,170 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

DISCUSSION

Title VII includes a venue provision, which provides that claims 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. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). By contrast, claims brought under the ADEA are governed by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391. See, e.g., Holmes v. Romeo Enters., LLC, No. 15-CV-3915 (VB), 2015 WL 10848308, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2015). Under the general venue provision, a civil action may be brought in (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.