Evans v. Absolute Results

Background

Dallas X. Evans, appearing without a lawyer, asserted claims against Absolute Results under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He alleged race discrimination and retaliation, including exclusion from meetings and loss of job and sales opportunities; workplace harassment and mistreatment; and late or unpaid compensation.

Evans and Absolute Results entered into a Consulting Services Agreement concerning services related to automotive sales. The agreement stated that Delaware law governed it and that disputes arising from or connected with the agreement were subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Delaware courts. It also identified the judicial district of Wilmington, Delaware for claims or legal proceedings connected with the agreement.

Absolute Results filed a pre-motion letter concerning a motion to dismiss based on the forum selection clause. The court treated the parties’ letters as briefing on that motion. Evans also requested permission to file his opposition one day late.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied a four-part test for forum selection clauses: whether the clause was reasonably communicated, whether it was mandatory, whether it covered the claims and parties, and whether enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust.

The court found that the clause was reasonably communicated because it was plainly displayed in the agreement Evans signed. Applying Delaware law to determine whether the clause was mandatory, the court found that the language requiring submission to the “exclusive jurisdiction” of Delaware courts made the clause mandatory.

The court also found that the clause covered Evans’s claims because they arose from his work as a consultant for Absolute Results under the agreement. The clause was therefore presumed enforceable.

The court considered whether Evans had shown that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust because of fraud or overreaching, fundamentally unfair law, a strong public policy, or an excessive burden that would deprive him of his day in court. Although Evans did not directly address those issues, the court read his statements about New York venue as raising a public-policy argument. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the existence of a policy favoring litigation of discrimination claims where the alleged conduct occurred did not require the claims to be heard there when the parties had agreed to another forum.

The court found no support for a claim that the clause resulted from fraud or overreaching, that Delaware law on employment discrimination was fundamentally unfair, or that proceeding in Delaware would be prohibitively difficult or expensive. It noted that Evans’s claims arose under federal statutes enforced nationwide and that the First Amended Complaint stated that he resided outside the Southern District of New York, in Rochester, New York.

Ruling

The court granted Absolute Results’ motion to dismiss based on the forum selection clause. It advised Evans that, under the clause, he could bring his Title VII and § 1981 claims against Absolute Results in the federal judicial district of Wilmington, Delaware.

The court granted Evans’s motion for a retroactive extension of time to file his response. It denied Absolute Results’ letter motion for permission to file a reply as moot. The Clerk was directed to close the case and specified docket entries.