Thompson v. Optum United Health Care
Tiffany Sherell Thompson v. Optum United Health Care; Optum/United Health Group; United Health Care Corporate Headquarters
- Laura Taylor Swain
- 0:25-cv-04251
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Thompson v. Optum United Health Care, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred pro se plaintiff Tiffany Sherell Thompson's employment discrimination case from the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota because New York is the wrong venue for claims against defendants located in Minnesota.
Pro se employment discrimination plaintiffs who file federal lawsuits in a district that has no connection to the events, records, or defendants at issue in their case — particularly those asserting claims under Title VII, the ADA, or the ADEA. This ruling illustrates that such cases may be transferred rather than dismissed when the plaintiff files in the wrong federal court.
What happened
In Thompson v. Optum United Health Care, Tiffany Sherell Thompson, a pro se (self-represented) plaintiff from the Bronx, New York, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Optum United Health Care, Optum/United Health Group, and United Health Care Corporate Headquarters, asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (prohibiting age-based employment discrimination), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (prohibiting disability-based employment discrimination). Thompson alleged that the defendants are all located in Minnesota and that the employment at issue also took place in Minnesota.
The court found that under the venue rules governing all three of Thompson's discrimination claims, the proper place to bring this lawsuit is in the District of Minnesota — not the Southern District of New York. Specifically, the relevant laws require that discrimination claims be filed where the discriminatory practice occurred, where employment records are kept, where the plaintiff would have worked, or where the defendants are located. Thompson alleged that all of those places are in Minnesota, and she alleged nothing connecting her claims to New York.
Because the Southern District of New York is the wrong venue for all of Thompson's claims, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), finding that transfer — rather than dismissal — was in the interest of justice. The question of whether Thompson may proceed without paying court filing fees will be decided by the Minnesota court. The case is now closed in New York.
The detailed version
Case: Tiffany Sherell Thompson v. Optum United Health Care; Optum/United Health Group; United Health Care Corporate Headquarters, No. 1:25-CV-8485 (LTS), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Decided October 28, 2025, by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Background
Plaintiff Tiffany Sherell Thompson, a pro se (self-represented) litigant from the Bronx, New York, filed this civil action asserting employment discrimination claims under three federal statutes: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ('Title VII'), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; (2) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ('ADEA'), which prohibits age-based employment discrimination; and (3) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ('ADA'), which prohibits disability-based employment discrimination. The court sua sponte (on its own, without a party requesting it) construed the complaint as including ADA claims because Thompson alleged disability or perceived disability discrimination, even though she did not explicitly invoke the ADA. Thompson named three defendants — Optum United Health Care, Optum/United Health Group, and United Health Care Corporate Headquarters — and alleged that all defendants are located in Minnesota and that the relevant employment was also in Minnesota. Thompson had not paid the filing fee and had submitted only the first page of a fee-waiver (in forma pauperis, or 'IFP') application.
Venue Analysis — Title VII and ADA Claims
The court applied the special venue provision for Title VII claims at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), which is also incorporated by reference for ADA claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Under that provision, such claims may be brought where the unlawful employment practice was committed, where relevant employment records are maintained, where the plaintiff would have worked but for the alleged discrimination, or, if the defendant is not found in any such district, where the defendant has its principal office. The court found that Thompson's allegations pointed exclusively to Minnesota for each of these possible venue locations. Because the entire state of Minnesota constitutes a single federal judicial district — the District of Minnesota — the Southern District of New York lacked proper venue for the Title VII and ADA claims.
Venue Analysis — ADEA Claims
Unlike Title VII and the ADA, the ADEA does not have its own special venue provision; it is governed by the general federal venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Under that statute, a civil action may be brought where any defendant resides (if all defendants reside in the same state), where a substantial part of the relevant events occurred, or (as a fallback) where any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction. The court found that all defendants appeared to reside in the District of Minnesota based on Thompson's allegations, and that Thompson alleged no events occurring in the Southern District of New York. Accordingly, the District of Minnesota — not the Southern District of New York — was also the proper venue for the ADEA claims.
Transfer Order
Because the Southern District of New York was the wrong venue for all of Thompson's claims, the court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which directs a court to either dismiss or transfer a case filed in the wrong venue, whichever is in the interest of justice. Chief Judge Swain chose transfer over dismissal and ordered the Clerk of Court to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The court declined to issue summonses (formal notices to defendants to appear) and left the IFP fee-waiver determination to the transferee court.
Appeal Note
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of this transfer order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied IFP status for appeal purposes, citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.