Joseph Dylag v. West Las Vegas Surgery Center, 16-15869

Background

Plaintiff Joseph Dylag sued his former joint employers, West Las Vegas Surgery Center (WLVSC) and Teamworks Professional Services, plus two WLVSC shareholders, alleging discrimination under the ADEA and ADA.
WLVSC’s written employment contract contained an arbitration clause covering "any dispute arising out of" the contract; defendants moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss.
The district court granted the motion and compelled arbitration as to all defendants; Dylag appealed as to Teamworks only (he did not appeal as to the WLVSC shareholders).
WLVSC is a signatory to the arbitration agreement; Teamworks is a co-employer but a non‑signatory with no contract privity with Dylag.
The central dispute on appeal: whether (1) Dylag knowingly waived his right to litigate ADEA/ADA claims against WLVSC and (2) Teamworks, as a non‑signatory, can compel arbitration via equitable estoppel under Nevada law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dylag knowingly waived the right to litigate ADEA/ADA claims by signing WLVSC’s employment contract	Dylag: he did not knowingly waive federal civil‑rights claims; waiver requirements for discrimination claims were not satisfied	WLVSC: the plain arbitration clause and Dylag’s assent show a knowing waiver of the judicial forum	Held: Court affirmed — Dylag knowingly waived his right to sue WLVSC in court; ADEA/ADA claims against WLVSC must be arbitrated
Whether Teamworks (non‑signatory co‑employer) can compel arbitration under equitable estoppel	Dylag: Teamworks cannot compel arbitration because it is not a party and his statutory discrimination claims do not rely on the contract	Teamworks: equitable estoppel and agency/contract principles permit binding a non‑signatory where claims are intertwined or conduct is concerted	Held: Court reversed district court as to Teamworks — equitable estoppel does not apply because Dylag’s federal discrimination claims are not founded in or intimately connected to the employment contract, nor are there pleaded concerted acts by Teamworks that are intertwined with contractual obligations
Which law governs whether a non‑signatory can be bound by an arbitration clause	Dylag: (implicit) federal standards for arbitration attachment might not bind a non‑signatory for statutory claims	Defendants: state contract/principles apply post‑Arthur Andersen	Held: Court applied Nevada state law (per contract’s choice‑of‑law and Arthur Andersen) to evaluate equitable estoppel
Whether plaintiff waived arguments about estoppel standard or choice of state framework	Dylag: did not develop an estoppel‑standard argument on appeal	Teamworks: district court’s estoppel ruling should stand; plaintiff waived counter‑arguments by failing to brief them	Held: Majority addressed estoppel on its merits and reversed; concurring/dissent argued Dylag waived the estoppel challenge and the panel should not have reached novel choice‑of‑law refinements

Key Cases Cited

Ziober v. BLB Res., Inc., 839 F.3d 814 (9th Cir. 2016) (standard of review and FAA arbitration‑compel framework)
Ashbey v. Archstone Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 785 F.3d 1320 (9th Cir. 2015) (valid, knowing waiver required to arbitrate federal employment‑discrimination claims)
Nelson v. Cyprus Bagdad Copper Corp., 119 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1997) (employees may waive claims when waiver is knowing and explicit)
Kummetz v. Tech Mold, Inc., 152 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 1998) (forms lacking explicit arbitration reference do not show knowing waiver)
Kramer v. Toyota Motor Corp., 705 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2013) (non‑signatories generally cannot invoke arbitration absent contract/agency principles; apply state law post‑Arthur Andersen)
Comer v. Micor, Inc., 436 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2006) (nonsignatories may be bound under equitable estoppel and ordinary contract/agency doctrines)
Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009) (courts must apply appropriate state law when determining certain arbitration‑binding principles)
Rajagopalan v. NoteWorld, LLC, 718 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2013) (equitable estoppel requires that disputes be intertwined with the contract to bind a non‑signatory)