The case primarily involves age discrimination but includes a sex discrimination claim.
The sex discrimination claim gave rise to a venue dispute involving where the lawsuit could be filed.
The federal government said the case had to be transferred from Arizona to Nevada because of a special venue provision in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination.
The plaintiff, an Arizona woman who is proceeding pro se, argued in court papers that the case should be moved to California, which would be more convenient for her and would not inconvenience the federal government. Alternatively, she asked to amend her complaint to drop the Title VII claim that gave rise to the venue dispute so the case could remain in Arizona.
The presiding judge was U.S. District Court Judge James A. Soto, 67, a Hispanic who was appointed to the bench in 2014 by former President Barack Obama. The job of a federal judge is to follow the law. Federal judges are paid more than $200,000 a year to put aside their personal bias and prejudice and to be fair.
It was not complicated. Federal courts have ruled that venue should be interpreted broadly in civil rights cases because Congress intended to afford citizens full and easy redress of grievances. Federal rules encourage judges to”freely” grant leave for a Plaintiff to amend her complaint, barring evidence of ill motive.
Judge Soto agreed that venue was proper in both California and Arizona (if Plaintiff dropped the conflicting sex discrimination claim). However, he ruled, without elaborating, that “judicial efficiency dictates that a transfer to the District of Nevada is in the interest of justice.” Continue reading “The Problem with Federal Judges Who Bully”
