{"id":409,"date":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=409"},"modified":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T12:00:00","slug":"koltys-bisignano-ssa-alj-rehabilitation-act-venue-transfer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=409","title":{"rendered":"Koltys v. Bisignano \u2014 N.D. Cal. transfers SSA ALJ\u2019s disability-accommodation suit to Central District"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Henry Koltys v. Frank Bisignano<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-06<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-04028<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Rehabilitation Act \u00a7 791; ADEA; Title VII; reasonable accommodation; remote\/virtual hearings; venue; 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1406, \u00a7 1404(a); Social Security Administration; Office of Hearings Operations<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Koltys filed an EEO complaint with the SSA\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Judge Susan Illston granted the SSA\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

Although Koltys argued that some of the alleged decision-making \u2014 particularly the SSA Commissioner\u2019s alleged role in denying the accommodation \u2014 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. \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n

The court did not reach the SSA\u2019s 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 \u00a7 1404(a) in the interest of justice.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n