UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL ASHBEY, No. 12-55912 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. v. 8:12-cv-00009- DOC-RNB ARCHSTONE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a corporation, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 4, 2014—Pasadena, California

Filed May 12, 2015

Before: Jay S. Bybee, Carlos T. Bea, and Morgan Christen, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Bea 2 ASHBEY V. ARCHSTONE PROP. MGMT.

SUMMARY*

Arbitration

The panel held that employee Michael Ashbey knowingly waived his right to a judicial forum for his Title VII claim and equivalent state-law claims, reversed the district court’s order denying Archstone Property Management, Inc.’s motion to compel arbitration, and remanded for entry of an order granting Archstone’s motion.

The scope of the Federal Arbitration Act is narrowed by federal statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which limits “the enforcement of arbitration agreements with regard to claims arising under” the statute. Kummetz v. Tech Mold, Inc., 152F.3d1153, 1155 (9th Cir. 1998).

The panel held that the case was distinguishable from Kummetz and Nelson v. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., 119F.3d756(9th Cir. 1997), because Archstone presented its employee the “express” choice lacking in Kummetz and Nelson where the employee signed an acknowledgment that explicitly notified him that Archstone’s Company Policy Manual contained a Dispute Resolution Policy section explaining Archstone’s arbitration policy, and the employee expressly agreed to adhere to the policy. The panel concluded that the arbitration provision was enforceable.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. ASHBEY V. ARCHSTONE PROP. MGMT. 3

COUNSEL Henry D. Lederman (argued), Littler Mendelson, P.C., Walnut Creek, California; Connie L. Michaels and Sarah E. Ross, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Los Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellant. Avi Burkwitz (argued) and Diana Ratcliff, Peterson Bradford Burkwitz, Burbank, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Susan R. Oxford (argued), Attorney, P. David Lopez, General Counsel, Carolyn L. Wheeler, Acting Associate General Counsel, and Lorraine C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

OPINION BEA, Circuit Judge:

Defendant Archstone Communities LLC (“Archstone”) appeals from the district court’s denial of its Motion to Compel Arbitration. We reverse the district court’s order and remand for entry of an order granting Archstone’s Motion to Compel Arbitration.

I.

Michael Ashbey was employed at Archstone from December 1996 until November 2010, when he was fired. He began as a Service Technician and was promoted to Regional Service Manager in 2003. 4 ASHBEY V. ARCHSTONE PROP. MGMT.

In 2009, Ashbey signed a document entitled “Acknowledgment of Receipt of Archstone Company Policy Manual 2009” (“Acknowledgment”). The Acknowledgment contained the following language:

I acknowledge that I have received directions as to how I may access the Archstone Company Policy Manual, including the Dispute Resolution Policy. I understand that Archstone can administer, interpret, discontinue, supplement, amend or withdraw any