Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Henry Koltys is a Social Security Administration administrative law judge in the Office of Hearings Operations. He has a back disability that requires him to work lying on his back; before the COVID-19 pandemic, he conducted in-person hearings using a reclining chair and a stand for his laptop. During the SSA’s pandemic closure of OHO offices from approximately February 2020 until October 2021, all hearings were conducted virtually. In July 2020, Koltys requested as a reasonable accommodation that he be allowed to continue conducting only virtual hearings after offices reopened. The SSA denied the request.
Koltys filed an EEO complaint with the SSA’s Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity in February 2023. The agency issued a Final Agency Decision against him in November 2023, and the EEOC affirmed in February 2025. He then sued the SSA Commissioner in the Northern District of California, asserting claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and Title VII, alleging that the SSA had refused to provide him with virtual hearings, modified courtroom facilities, or other appropriate accommodations while assigning all-virtual hearings to younger, female, non-disabled ALJs. The SSA moved to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the Central District of California.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Susan Illston granted the SSA’s motion to transfer the case to the Central District of California. The court applied the venue provisions in Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act, which generally tie venue to the district where the unlawful employment practice was committed, where the relevant employment records are maintained, and where the aggrieved person would have worked but for the unlawful conduct.
Although Koltys argued that some of the alleged decision-making — particularly the SSA Commissioner’s alleged role in denying the accommodation — touched the Northern District, the court found that the bulk of the relevant employment activity, hearing offices, and supervisory personnel were tied to the Central District where Koltys actually worked. Even assuming venue was proper in both districts, the convenience analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) favored transfer: the witnesses, documents, and locus of operative facts were predominantly in the Central District; transfer would not unduly inconvenience Koltys; and the Central District has a strong local interest in resolving employment disputes involving Office of Hearings Operations facilities located there.
The court did not reach the SSA’s alternative arguments that Koltys failed to state a claim or to exhaust administrative remedies, leaving those for the Central District. The court denied the motion to dismiss for improper venue without prejudice and ordered the case transferred under § 1404(a) in the interest of justice.
Key Takeaways
- Federal employees suing under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act generally must file in the district where the alleged unlawful practice was committed, where employment records are maintained, or where the plaintiff would have worked.
- For SSA Office of Hearings Operations ALJs, the proper venue is generally the district that hosts the assigned hearing office, not the district where the SSA Commissioner is located or where final agency decisions issue.
- Even when venue is technically proper in both districts, courts apply 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)’s convenience analysis. The location of witnesses, documents, and operative facts often dictates transfer.
- SSA accommodation disputes around remote vs. in-person hearings remain a live and contested area of federal-employment law in the post-pandemic era.
- Judges asked to dismiss for improper venue typically prefer transfer in the interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Why It Matters
The case sits at the intersection of two ongoing legal trends: federal employees seeking continued remote-work accommodations after the COVID-19 era and the federal judiciary’s consistent preference for transferring rather than dismissing improperly venued employment cases. The opinion reaffirms that the Federal Rules and the substantive employment statutes work in tandem to push these disputes back to the district that has the most operational and factual connection to the workplace.
For ALJs and other Office of Hearings Operations personnel filing accommodation claims, the practical lesson is to file in the district where the assigned hearing office sits. For SSA and other federal-agency defense counsel, the opinion supplies a clean template for venue/transfer motions: lead with the federal-employee venue statutes, then move to the § 1404(a) convenience analysis as a back-up.