1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in determining that the "DOL's independent interest in Mawhinney's AIR21 discrimination and retaliation complaint ... ceased once its investigation concluded with a finding of no violation?"

Did the Ninth Circuit err in determining that a Statutory Federal Regulation (29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(e)), a rule that was not accepted, ordained, or published until March 21, 2003, (68 FR 14107), applies to the SAgreement which was conceived on December 17, 2002?

Did the Ninth Circuit, and District Court, err in determining that RSMawhinney's AIR21 discrimination complaint could lawfully be the subject of a pre-dispute arbitration provision, within the SAgreement, that did not include AIR21 within the provision?

Determining whether an air carrier employee's AIR21 discrimination complaint can be subject to a pre-dispute arbitration provision