MARIE ANDRE v. TARGET

District Court of Appeal of Florida

MARIE ANDRE v. TARGET

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 11, 2023

Docket22-0296

StatusPublished

This text of MARIE ANDRE v. TARGET (MARIE ANDRE v. TARGET) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MARIE ANDRE v. TARGET, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 11, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-296 Lower Tribunal Nos. FCHR Order No. 21-083, FCHR 2020-25804, DOAH 21-0059, EEOC 15D2020000989 ________________

Marie Andre, Appellant,

vs.

Target, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Florida Commission on Human Relations.

Marie Andre, in proper person.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., and Stefanie Mederos and Alan Persaud, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Mavroleon v. Orrego, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D2167, 2022

WL 14672755, at *3 (Fla. 3d DCA Oct. 26, 2022) (“Florida courts, however,

will enforce the terms of contracts that are knowingly and voluntarily

executed because Floridians have a right to secure their own destiny and a

right to expect that their lawfully enacted contracts will be enforced”) (citing

Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Bratton, 351 So. 2d 344, 347-48 (Fla. 1977) (“It has

long been held in Florida that one is bound by his contract. Unless one can

show facts and circumstances to demonstrate that she was prevented from

reading the contract, or that he was induced by statements of the other party

to refrain from reading the contract, it is binding. No party to a written

contract in this state can defend against its enforcement on the sole ground

that he signed it without reading it”)). See also Myricks v. Fed. Reserve Bank

of Atlanta, 480 F.3d 1036, 1040-41 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming a plaintiff

knowingly and voluntarily released his pending Title VII claims when he

signed a severance agreement) (citing Puentes v. UPS, 86 F.3d 196, 198

(11th Cir. 1996) (“When an employee knowingly and voluntarily releases an

employer from liability for Title VII and § 1981 claims with a full understanding

of the terms of the agreement, he is bound by that agreement.”))

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI