DANTZLER LUMBER AND EXPORT COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM R. DEFREITAS AND PATRICIA DEFREITAS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An employer appeals a jury verdict finding breach of an employment agreement, arguing the trial court should have directed a verdict against the employee. The court affirms, holding that the employee's involuntary resignation made under duress was voidable and that disputed factual issues regarding fraud in the inducement and duress were properly submitted to the jury.
The trial court did not err in submitting the case to the jury. An employee's resignation that is involuntary because of duress is voidable and does not bar a suit for breach of contract. Although there was substantial evidence supporting the employer's fraud claim, the evidence was contested and disputed, making it a matter for jury resolution.
[1] A resignation procured by duress is voidable.
[2] Conflicting evidence regarding the voluntariness of a resignation is a question for the jury.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Generally an employee who elects to resign gives up his right to sue for breach of contract. But a resignation that is involuntary because of duress is voidable.”
Establishes the key legal principle that voidable resignations procured by duress do not bar employment breach claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn employer fired an employee and advised him that it would only reconsider the discharge if the employee formally resigned. The employee signed a res…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Involuntary Resignation cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
This is an appeal by an employer from a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, a former employee, for breach of an employment agreement.
The employer contends that the trial court erred by failing to direct a verdict against the plaintiff because he had signed a resignation and because there was evidence that he lied at the time of his employment interview concerning the reason for his discharge from a previous employment. The plaintiff contends that his resignation was involuntary and made under duress when he was fired and advised that the appellant would only reconsider the discharge if the employee formally resigned.
Generally an employee who elects to resign gives up his right to sue for breach of contract. But a resignation that is involuntary because of duress is voidable. See Mullan v. Bishop of the Diocese of Orlando, 540 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); McLaughlin v. State, Department of Natural Resources, 526 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). See also City of Miami v. Kory, 394 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 407 So. 2d 1104 (Fla.1981). We have examined the record and conclude that there was sufficient evidentiary-support for the trial court’s decision to submit all issues to the jury. We recognize that there was substantial evidence supporting the employer’s contention that the employment contract was fraudulently induced. However, this evidence was contested, disputed and, to some extent, impeached by plaintiff’s evidence. The conflicting testimony was for the jury to resolve. The plaintiff was entitled to have all evidence viewed in a light favorable to him as the non-moving party, and to have all conflicts resolved in his favor. See, e.g., Collins v. School Board of Broward County, 471 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Therefore, the final judgment is affirmed.
HERSEY, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mied, Inc., 869 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…n that the remedies of the administrative process were inadequate). [*19] MIED also successfully argued below that a question of fact existed as to whether it was coerced into the settlement. MIED relies on Dantzler Lumber & Export Co. v. Defreitas, 544 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), for support of the proposition that the existence of duress is a jury question. Dantzler Lumber, however, involved questions of conflicting evidence regarding whether an employee’s resignation was the product of duress and there…
Authorities Cited
- Collins v. The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty., 471 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- City OF Miami v. Kory, 394 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- McLAUGHLIN v. State, 526 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Mullan v. Bishop OF THE Diocese OF Orlando, 540 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)