Goldberg Segalla partner Caroline J. Berdzik successfully secured a dismissal on behalf of a large insurance claims handling organization in a case involving allegations of disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act brought by a former employee.

The plaintiff alleged that our client discriminated against him by refusing to find him other work due to his disability. The plaintiff, who apparently suffered from chronic medical issues, claimed that after contracting a short-term illness and taking a leave of absence, the client of our client refused to allow him to work on its claims. He was hired to work in Maryland but then requested reassignment to a different account in another state, but he was not offered any assignments to other accounts.

At first, the plaintiff filed his lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, and that lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice since there was no connection to New Jersey. The plaintiff then filed an EEOC charge in Pennsylvania and later filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting that venue was proper because he had communicated with our client from his home in Northeastern Pennsylvania. However, our defense team demonstrated these facts did not satisfy venue pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(3). Further, venue under the ADA requires that the alleged unlawful employment practice must have occurred in the district, that relevant employment records be maintained there, or that the plaintiff would have worked there but for the alleged discrimination.

The judge agreed with our position, noting that the plaintiff’s communications from his home in the Middle District of Pennsylvania were insufficient to establish venue in the Eastern District, also adding that the plaintiff’s desire to work in Pennsylvania or New Jersey was speculative and not grounded in any concrete job offer or assignment that would have placed him in the Eastern District.

The court emphasized that venue cannot be based on a plaintiff’s personal preferences or hypothetical job prospects. Because none of the statutory criteria were met, the court dismissed the case without prejudice.

This result represents Goldberg Segalla’s ability to navigate complex procedural issues and deliver strategic results that protect our clients’ interests.