Melton

MEMORANDUM ***

In this employment discrimination dispute, the district court granted Philip Morris Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration of Melton’s state tort and federal discrimination claims, but denied its motion to compel arbitration of her state discrimination claims. Philip Morris appeals. 1 The district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367(a). We have jurisdiction of this timely filed appeal under 9 U.S.C. § 16 (a). We review de novo. Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int’l. Inc., 265 F.3d 931, 936 (9th Cir.2001). We reverse and remand to the district court for it to enter an order compelling the arbitration of Melton’s state law discrimination claims.

*703 The district court held that the compulsory arbitration agreement is invalid as to the state discrimination claims under Duffield v. Robertson Stephens & Co., 144 F.Sd 1182, 1187 (9th Cir.1998). Duffield’s continuing vitality is currently under attack. See EEOC v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, 303 F.3d 994 , 1002-03 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that the Supreme Court implicitly overruled Duffield in Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 , 121 S.Ct. 1302 , 149 L.Ed.2d 234 (2001)), vacated by 319 F.3d 1091…