9. Some federal statutes contain special venue rules for where a civil action may be brought. An example may be found in 42 U.S.C. § 2005e-5(f)(3), which defines the venue for an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Such actions may be brought:

in any judicial district in the State in which the unlawful employment practice is alleged to have been committed, in the judicial district in which the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered, or in the judicial district in which the aggrieved person would have worked but for the alleged unlawful employment practice, but if the responded is not found within any such district, such an action may be brought within the judicial district in which the respondent has his principal office.

See James v. Verizon Services Corp., 639 F.Supp. 2d 9, 12 (D.D.C. 2009). Does the general venue statute remain available to plaintiffs who bring suit under federal statutes with special venue rules? Does your answer depend on whether the special venue statute is permissive or mandatory, restrictive or liberal? See Cortez Byrd Chips, Inc. v. Bill Harbert Construction Co., 529 U.S. 193, 204, 120 S.Ct. 1331, 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 171, 181 (2000). If the statute makes the venue of a claim exclusive to a specific district, and this condition is not met, would it be appropriate for the district court to apply a doctrine of pendent venue to cure the defect?