MEMORANDUM **

Chris Dittenhafer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissing his action alleging employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Chiron Corp. v. Ortho Diagnostic Sys., Inc., 207 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

The district court properly compelled arbitration of Dittenhafer’s claims under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) and California law because the arbitration policy in defendant’s employee handbook covered Dittenhafer’s statutory employment discrimination claims and was not substantively unconscionable. See id. (fed *595 eral court’s role under the FAA is limited to determining whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists and whether it encompasses the dispute at issue); see also AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1746, 179 L.Ed.2d 742 (2011) (California law requires both procedural and substantive unconscionability for a court to invalidate an arbitration clause).

Dittenhafer’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.