Circuit City Stores, Inc., a Virginia Corporation v. Mohammad Sharfuddin Ahmed

Good Law
2002 Daily Journal DAR 3166·283 F.3d 1198·2002 WL 441528·82 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,967·88 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 626
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 22, 200298-55896California788 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nelson, J.

The Supreme Court vacated this Court’s prior decision in this case and remanded for proceedings in accordance with its opinion in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 , 121 S.Ct. 1302 , 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001). This case in its current posture raises issues identical to those we addressed on remand in Adams, 279 F.3d 889 (9th Cir.2002), except that the arbitration agreement at issue in this case allowed employees a meaningful choice not to participate in the program. We find this difference — -the genuine possibility to opt-out of the arbitration program — -to be dispositive and therefore affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 1995, Mohammad Sharfuddin Ahmed began working as a sales counselor at Circuit City. A month later, Circuit City instituted an “Associates Issue Resolution Program” that included a provision calling for “binding arbitration of legal disputes.” On April 4, 1995, Ahmed signed an “Associate Receipt of Issue Resolution Package” form. The package contained (1) an Associate Issue Resolution Handbook, (2) the Circuit City Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures, and (3) a Circuit City “Opt Out” Form. If Ahmed did not mail the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.