Circuit City Stores, Inc., a Virginia Corporation v. Paul Mantor, an Individual

Good Law
2003 Daily Journal DAR 8084·335 F.3d 1101·2003 WL 21694397·20 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 274·84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 41,542
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 22, 200302-55230California3,198 words

Opinion

Opinion

Pregerson, J.

Paul Mantor appeals from the district court’s grant of Circuit City Stores, Inc’s (Circuit City) motion to compel arbitration. Mantor argues on appeal that Circuit City’s arbitration agreement is unenforceable under California law of unconscionability. We agree and therefore reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural Background

Paul Mantor worked for Circuit City from August 1992 until October 2000, when Circuit City terminated his employment. When Circuit City hired Mantor, it had no arbitration program. In 1995, Circuit City implemented an arbitration program called the “Associate Issue Resolution Program” (AIRP). Circuit City emphasized to managers the importance of full participation in the AIRP, claiming that the company had been losing money because of lawsuits filed by employees. Circuit City management stressed that employees had little choice in this matter; they suggested that employees ought to sign the agreement or prepare to be terminated. Although Circuit City .circulated the forms regarding the AIRP in 1995, Mantor was able to avoid either signing up or openly refusing to participate in the AIRP for three years. In 1998, Circuit City District Manager Brad…

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.