Robert S. Mawhinney v. Transport Workers Union, Local 591; U.s. Department of Labor

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT S. MAWHINNEY,
Petitioner,
v.
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION, LOCAL
591; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
No. 21-70039
ARB Case No. 2019-0018
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT S. MAWHINNEY,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Respondents.
No. 21-70283
ARB Case No. 2020-0067
On Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Department of Labor
Submitted November 15, 2022**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 22 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-70039
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Robert S. Mawhinney petitions pro se for review of the Department of
Labor’s Administrative Review Board’s (“ARB”) decisions and orders dismissing
his whistleblower complaint under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR21”). We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.
§ 42121(b)(4)(A). We review the ARB’s decisions in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), “under which the ARB’s legal conclusions
must be sustained unless they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law, and its findings of fact must be sustained
unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.”
Calmat Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 364 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny
the petitions.
The ARB properly granted summary decision against Mawhinney on his
AIR21 claim against American Airlines, Inc. (“Airline”) because this court has
already affirmed the arbitrator’s award in favor of the Airline on this claim. See
Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 19-55566, 807 F. App’x 720 (9th Cir. June 2,
2020). Mawhinney’s challenge to the propriety of the decision to compel
arbitration of his AIR21 claim against the Airline likewise fails because this court
has already affirmed the order compelling arbitration of this claim. See Am.
Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, 904 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2018).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-70039
The ARB properly granted summary decision against Mawhinney on his
AIR21 claim against Transport Workers Union, Local 591 (“Union”) because the
Union was not an air carrier, or a contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier,
under AIR21. See 49 U.S.C. § 42121(a) (2020) (providing that AIR21 bars
retaliation by an “air carrier or contractor or subcontractor of an air carrier”); id. §
42121(e) (defining a “contractor” as “a company that performs safety-sensitive
functions by contract for an air carrier”); Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Zinke, 877 F.3d
845, 866 (9th Cir. 2017) (noting that the standard of review under the APA is
“highly deferential, presuming the agency action to be valid and affirming the
agency action if a reasonable basis exists for its decision” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
We reject as without merit Mawhinney’s contention that his due process
rights were violated.
PETITIONS FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --