United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
CHRISTINE E. TRIVETTE, Plaintiff,
WALMART STORES, INC. Defendant.
D. Whitney Chief United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Transfer Venue (Doc. No.
3). This motion has been fully briefed by the parties (Docs.
Nos. 3-1, 8, 9) and is now ripe for disposition. For the
reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
DENIED, and Defendant's Motion to Transfer is GRANTED.
Consequently, Defendant's Motion for Hearing (Doc. No. 5)
is DENIED as MOOT.
Christine E. Trivette, is a former employee of Defendant,
Walmart Stores, Inc. Plaintiff filed her complaint in this
Court on September 20, 2017, asserting three causes of action
resulting from Defendant's alleged violations of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title I of the American
with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended by the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008, and the Family Medical Leave Act.
(Doc. No. 1, p. 1-2).
began working in Defendant's Kannapolis, North Carolina,
location in 2009, subsequently taking positions at various
Walmart locations in North and South Carolina. Id.
at 3. The alleged wrongs and damages pertaining to
Plaintiff's complaint, however, occurred at Walmart Store
#01030 (“Walmart No. 1030”) in Lancaster, South
Carolina. Id. at 1.
employed as the store manager of Walmart No. 1030, Plaintiff
alleges she was discriminated against by Area Market Manager,
Kurt Herkert, because of her sex. Id. at 3-4. On
February 11, 2015, Plaintiff requested she be allowed to
transfer to Defendant's location near Charlotte, North
Carolina. Id. at 4. This request was denied;
Plaintiff alleges this is directly attributable to Mr.
Herkert's discrimination against her. Id. at 5.
April 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination
with the Charlotte District Office of the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
alleging discrimination and retaliation based on her sex
and/or gender against Defendant. Id. at 2. After
receiving notices of Right to Sue from the EEOC on June 20,
2017, Plaintiff then filed this complaint. Id. at 3.
As a resident of Charlotte, Plaintiff argues that venue is
proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), as she would have worked in
North Carolina but for the alleged unlawful employment
filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, to Transfer
Venue (Doc. No. 3) on October 16, 2017.
Motion to Dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) a defendant may move
to dismiss a complaint for improper venue. When a 12(b)(3)
motion to dismiss is filed, the plaintiff bears the burden
“to establish that venue is proper in the judicial
districts in which the plaintiff has brought the
action.” Plant Genetic Systems, N.V. vs. Ciba
Seeds, 933 F.Supp. 519, 526 (M.D. N.C. 1996).
correctly points out that Defendant is considered a resident
of the Western District of North Carolina pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). This Court, therefore, finds that
under both 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f)(3), Title VII's venue provision, venue in the
Western District of North Carolina is proper. Accordingly,
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.
Motion to Transfer
Court further finds, however, that in the interest of justice
this case should be transferred to the District of South
Carolina, Rock Hill ...