Michael Leon v. Securaplane Technologies Inc , 595 F. App'x 710 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL A. LEON, No. 13-71450
Petitioner, LABR No. 11-069
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SECURAPLANE TECHNOLOGIES
INCORPORATED; et al.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Labor
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Michael A. Leon petitions pro se for review of a Final Decision and Order of
the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (“ARB”), affirming
dismissal of his whistleblower retaliation claim against his former employer under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument, and accordingly denies Leon’s requests for oral argument.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21st Century
(“AIR21”). We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(4)(A). We review
the ARB’s decision in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 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 not supported by substantial
evidence. Calmat Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 364 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny the petition.
Contrary to Leon’s contention, the ARB did not err in upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s decision because Securaplane Technologies
demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated
Leon’s employment in the absence of his protected activity. See 49 U.S.C.
§ 42121(a)(1), (b)(2)(B) (setting forth the two-part analysis for an AIR21 claim
and requiring that any complaint relate to a violation or alleged violation of federal
air carrier safety law); see also Retlaw Broad. Co. v. N.L.R.B., 53 F.3d 1002, 1006
(9th Cir. 1995) (“Credibility determinations by the ALJ are given great deference,
and are upheld unless they are inherently incredible or patently unreasonable.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
2 13-71450
We reject Leon’s claims of alleged bias or corruption, and procedural and
evidentiary errors.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-71450