Slater v. Energy Services Group International, Inc.
634 F.3d 1326
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Slater signed an at-will employment agreement with ESGI on May 14, 2006, which included a mandatory forum-selection clause requiring claims arising from the agreement to be brought in Richmond, Virginia, and a Virginia choice-of-law provision.
- Slater was assigned to a Progress Energy plant in Crystal River, Florida, with ESGI, Progress Energy, and Florida Power jointly employing her.
- In February 2007 Slater announced pregnancy and was terminated in February 2007 for perceived performance concerns based on conduct at work.
- On February 9, 2009 Slater filed suit in the Middle District of Florida alleging Title VII, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and the Florida Whistleblower Act; EEOC notice gave her 90 days to sue on Title VII claims.
- ESGI moved on March 12, 2009 to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) based on the forum-selection clause, and sought alternatively transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The district court dismissed ESGI’s claims without prejudice on April 15, 2009; on appeal, Slater challenged venue, forum-selection enforceability, and the Rule 12(b)(3) posture.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forum-clause covers the Title VII and Florida claims | Slater asserts the clause is not mandatory for statutorily based claims. | ESGI contends the clause is mandatory and broad, covering all claims arising from the agreement. | Yes; the clause is mandatory and encompasses Slater’s Title VII, FCRA, and FWA claims. |
| Whether enforcing the forum-clause violates public policy | Enforcement would deprive day in court and create parallel proceedings, contrary to policy. | Enforcement is presumptively valid and only overridden by limited public-policy exceptions. | Enforcement not shown to contravene public policy; policy arguments insufficient to overcome enforceability. |
| Whether Rule 12(b)(3) dismissal was proper versus §1404(a) transfer | §1404(a) transfer is the proper mechanism to enforce a forum clause in domestic venue. | Rule 12(b)(3) is appropriate to enforce a forum clause per Lipcon and Stewart Org. | Rule 12(b)(3) dismissal is proper; §1404(a) transfer applies when enforcing a contractual forum clause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Global Satellite Commc'n Co. v. Starmill U.K. Ltd., 378 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.2004) (enforceability of forum-selection clauses reviewed de novo)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (transfer-of-venue statute governs enforcement of forum clauses; supports dismissal as improper venue)
- Lipcon v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 148 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.1998) (motion to dismiss based on forum-selection clause proper under Rule 12(b)(3))
- Rucker v. Oasis Legal Finance, LLC., 632 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir.2011) (review of venue-clauses and contract terminology de novo in this circuit)
- Krenkel v. Kerzner Int'l Hotels Ltd., 579 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.2009) (mandatory forum-selection clauses presumptively valid; exceptions are narrow)
- Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir.1981) (binding precedent from former Fifth Circuit decisions)
- Belize Telecom, Ltd. v. Belize, Not provided in opinion text (Not provided) (cited for contract-interpretation principles (not included due to missing official reporter citation))