American Airlines, Inc. v. Mawhinney, No. 16-56638 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseIn these related appeals brought under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21), at issue was whether the district court properly compelled arbitration of plaintiff's claims for whistleblowing retaliation. The Ninth Circuit affirmed as to the retaliation claim against plaintiff's employer, American Airlines, holding that the Airline did not waive its right to arbitrate by waiting to move to compel until after an agency investigation into its conduct was complete, nor was there reason to believe private AIR21 retaliation claims were inherently nonarbitrable. The panel reversed as to the retaliation claim against the Union, holding that the Union was not a party to the arbitration provision at issue in these cases and was not otherwise entitled to enforce the provision.
Court Description: Labor Law / Arbitration. In two related appeals concerning claims for whistleblowing retaliation under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, the panel denied motions to dismiss the appeals, affirmed the district court’s order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim against his employer, and reversed its order compelling arbitration of the plaintiff’s claim against his union. Denying the motions to dismiss, the panel held that it had jurisdiction over the appeals because the district court’s orders compelling arbitration were no longer interlocutory once the district court dismissed the actions and entered judgment. Affirming as to the AIR21 retaliation claim against the employer, the panel held that the employer did not waive its right to arbitrate by waiting to move to compel until after an * The Honorable P. Kevin Castel, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. AMERICAN AIRLINES V. MAWHINNEY 3 agency investigation into its conduct was complete. The panel held that private AIR21 retaliation claims are not inherently nonarbitrable. The panel also held that arbitration was not barred by the state statute of limitations or by the Federal Arbitration Act. Reversing as to the retaliation claim against the union, the panel concluded that the union was not a party to the arbitration provision at issue and was not otherwise entitled to enforce the provision under agency law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.