Arlene Rowland v. United States Department of La

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARLENE D. ROWLAND, No. 10-70428
Petitioner, LABR No. 08-108
v.
MEMORANDUM *
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR; et al.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Department of Labor
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Arlene D. Rowland petitions pro se for review of the Department of Labor’s
Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) order dismissing her whistle-blower
complaint under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Rowland’s
request for oral argument is denied.
We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A) and 49 U.S.C.
§ 42121(b)(4). We review the ARB’s decision pursuant to the Administrative
Procedure Act and will reverse only if the decision is “arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Coppinger-Martin
v. Solis, 627 F.3d 745, 748 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). We deny the petition.
The ARB did not err by dismissing Rowland’s complaint because Rowland
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Prudential Equity
Group, LLC’s filing of a lawsuit to confirm an arbitration award constituted an
adverse action under the SOX. See 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a) (SOX whistle-blower
provision); Van Asdale v. Int’l Games Tech., 577 F.3d 989, 996 (9th Cir. 2009)
(elements of prima facie case under SOX whistle-blower provision).
Rowland’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Rowland’s request for judicial notice is denied as unnecessary because
respondents have included the necessary parts of the administrative record in the
excerpts of record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 10-70428