DeBello v. VolumeCocomo Apparel, Inc.
17-554-cv
2d Cir.Dec 28, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Glenn DeBello, a New York–based executive hired by VolumeCocomo in October 2012, alleged repeated workplace harassment and discrimination in New York, salary reduction, and termination in April 2013.
- DeBello filed an EEOC charge in October 2013 and received a right-to-sue notice in October 2015; he sued in the Southern District of New York in January 2016 under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYC Admin. Code, and breach of contract (California law).
- DeBello’s employment agreement contained a choice-of-law clause (California law) and a mandatory forum-selection clause designating the Superior Court of Los Angeles, West Judicial District, plus a clause stating each party had opportunity for independent legal review.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens based on that forum-selection clause; the district court granted the motion and dismissed DeBello’s claims.
- On appeal to the Second Circuit, DeBello argued the forum-selection clause conflicts with Title VII’s special venue provision (which favors local venues where the discriminatory acts occurred) and thus violates public policy.
- The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding the clause enforceable under the applicable forum-selection doctrine and finding no showing that Title VII’s venue provision alone rendered the clause unenforceable in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum-selection clause vs. Title VII venue provision | Clause contravenes Title VII’s public-policy preference for local venue and thus is unenforceable | Clause is presumptively enforceable; parties freely bargained for California forum | Court held clause enforceable; Title VII venue preference alone did not invalidate it here |
| Standard for invalidating forum-selection clause | Need not show chosen forum is inadequate; conflict with strong public policy suffices | Bremen factors control and plaintiff must meet one to rebut presumption | Court agreed public-policy conflict can suffice but found DeBello did not meet that burden here |
| Whether DeBello was deprived of meaningful access to court | Plaintiff argued venue clause effectively deprives him of day in court | Defendants noted plaintiff retained right to litigate in California and had bargaining power when agreeing | Court found plaintiff still retained the right to adjudicate claims and was not effectively deprived of a forum |
| Weight of party’s bargaining position and opportunity for counsel | Plaintiff asserted public-policy concern outweighs bargained-for clause | Defendants emphasized DeBello’s executive status, high salary, and opportunity to consult counsel | Court considered those facts and found the clause freely bargained and enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Bloomberg LP, 740 F.3d 211 (2d Cir.) (forum-selection clause analysis and Bremen factors)
- Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568 (Sup. Ct.) (enforcement of forum-selection clauses via forum non conveniens)
- M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (contractual forum clauses unenforceable if they contravene strong public policy)
- Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd., 494 F.3d 378 (2d Cir.) (presumptive enforceability criteria for forum-selection clauses)
- Red Bull Assocs. v. Best Western Int’l, Inc., 862 F.2d 963 (2d Cir.) (civil-rights statutes weigh against automatic dispositive effect for forum clauses)
- Desiderio v. Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 191 F.3d 198 (2d Cir.) (compulsory arbitration/enforcement of forum restrictions in employment contexts)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (Sup. Ct.) (discussion of forum-selection clauses and forum non conveniens)