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

Before us is a second appeal in this matter. In our earlier appeal, we reversed the district court’s order compelling arbitration and held that the arbitration agreement at issue was unenforceable under California law.

Currently, Respondenh-Appellant Paul Mantor (“Mantor”) appeals the district court’s second order granting Petitioner-Appellee Circuit City’s “renewed petition to compel arbitration.” The district court again ordered that the dispute be resolved by arbitration and once again dismissed the action.

We have jurisdiction because the district court’s second order was a final decision with respect to arbitration within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a)(3). See Green Tree Fin. Corp. Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 86-87 , 121 S.Ct. 513 , 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000). We reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

Mantor began working for Circuit City in August 1992. When Mantor was first hired, Circuit City did not have an employee arbitration program. But in 1995, Circuit City established and implemented an arbitration program called the “Associate Issue Resolution Program” (“AIRP”). Circuit City’s managers were told it was important that its employees fully participate in the AIRP because the…