In Barnes v. IBM Corporation, 212 Mich. App. 223, 537 N.W.2d 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995), the plaintiff sued his employer in the Wayne County, Michigan, Circuit Court, alleging racial discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 537 N.W.2d at 265. The illegal action sued upon was described in the Barnes opinion cryptically as "adverse employment decisions," and Wayne County was said not to be the "locus of the plaintiff's employment." Barnes, 537 N.W.2d 265 at 266 (White, J. Helene, concurring). The defendant in Barnes sought a change of venue from Wayne County to Oakland County, which was denied by the trial court. Barnes, 537 N.W.2d 265 at 265-66. That decision was reversed by the Michigan Court of Appeals. Barnes, 537 N.W.2d 265 at 266. The venue provision discussed in Barnes was the Michigan Civil Rights Act, which provided that an action may be brought in the circuit court for the county where the alleged violation occurred, or for the county where the person against whom the civil complaint is filed resides or has his principal place of business. Barnes, 537 N.W.2d 265 at 265. Michigan's venue provision for tort actions (such as the intentional infliction of emotional distress action brought by the Barnes plaintiff) provided that a plaintiff could file suit in "a county in which all or part of the cause of action arose and in which either" defendant resides, has a place of business or conducts business, or where defendant's registered corporate office is located.Id. (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws 600.1629(1)(a) (2002)). The Barnes court's majority opinion noted that venue would be proper (under either statute) in Oakland County because the defendant's corporate office in Michigan was located there and the allegedly discriminatory and tortious decisions were made there. Barnes, 537 N.W.2d 265 at 266. The plaintiff, however, contended that venue was proper in Wayne County because "that is where he experienced at least some of the effects of the defendants' decisions and where he suffered resulting damages." Id. Two of the three judges on the Barnes panel rejected the plaintiff's argument and said: Allowing an action to be brought where its effects or damages occur would encourage forum shopping in contravention of the goals of the venue provisions. Further, the civil rights statute clearly provides that venue is proper where "the alleged violation occurred," not where its effects were felt or where the damages accrued. The violations alleged are adverse employment decisions. Although plaintiff performed some work in Wayne County, he has provided no credible factual evidence that any of the allegedly discriminatory decisions were made in Wayne County, as distinguished from their effects being felt there. Id.