Opinion ID: 206212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of the Forum-Selection Clause

Text: Slater first contends that her Title VII and Florida statutory claims do not fit within the scope of the employment agreement's forum-selection clause. She presents a number of only slightly varied arguments in support of her contention, but principally argues that the forum-selection clause should be read to encompass only breach-of-contract claims directly relating to the employment agreement. Because her claims are statutorily based, she argues the forum-selection clause does not apply. Under general contract principles, the plain meaning of a contract's language governs its interpretation. Belize Telecom, Ltd. v. Belize, 528 F.3d 1298, 1307 & n. 11 (11th Cir.2008). The court must look at the contract as a whole, the parties, and the purpose of the agreement to best determine the intent of the parties in interpreting the agreement. Pennzoil Co. v. F.E.R.C., 645 F.2d 360, 388 (5th Cir.1981). [3] If no other contract principles point to a particular meaning, the court will prefer the reasonable interpretation that operates more strongly against the party who drafted the document. Global Satellite, 378 F.3d at 1271 (citing Citro Fla., Inc. v. Citrovale, S.A., 760 F.2d 1231, 1232 (11th Cir.1985)). This court and others often characterize forum-selection clauses as either permissive or mandatory. Id. at 1272. A permissive clause authorizes jurisdiction in a designated forum but does not prohibit litigation elsewhere, whereas [a] mandatory clause ... `dictates an exclusive forum for litigation under the contract.' Id. (quoting Snapper, Inc. v. Redan, 171 F.3d 1249, 1262 n. 24 (11th Cir. 1999)). The forum-selection clause states that all claims or causes of action relating to or arising from this Agreement shall be brought in a court in the City of Richmond, Virginia. Based on a plain reading of the clause, we conclude that the forum designation in the clause is not permissive, but mandatory. As we have recognized, the use of the term shall is one of requirement. Id. at 1272 (The contract provision... because it uses the imperative `shall,' is most reasonably interpreted to mandate venue ....). Thus, we hold that the claims within the scope of the forum-selection clause must be brought in a court in Richmond, Virginia, and not in the District Court for the Middle District of Florida. We also conclude that Slater's claims fall squarely within the scope of the forum-selection clause. The clause is found in Slater's contract for employment, which governs the entirety of the employment relationship between Slater and ESGI. The clause is expressly applicable to all claims or causes of action relating to or arising from [the employment agreement]. This includes all claims arising directly or indirectly from the relationship evidenced by the contract. See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 810 F.2d 1066, 1070 (11th Cir.1987), aff'd, 487 U.S. 22, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101 L.Ed.2d 22 (1988). Slater claims that ESGI violated its employment obligations by discriminating and retaliating against her. Therefore, we conclude that Slater's Title VII, FCRA, and FWA claims are within the scope of the forum-selection clause.