{"id":83,"date":"2026-04-16T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=83"},"modified":"2026-04-16T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T12:00:00","slug":"gonzales-v-battelle-energy-alliance-ada-fitness-for-duty-egan-justiciability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=83","title":{"rendered":"Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance \u2014 Ninth Circuit holds that revoking a Security Police Officer’s fitness-for-duty certification is reviewable under the ADA, distinguishing it from a national-security clearance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-16<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
25-1037<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Americans with Disabilities Act; retaliation; ‘regarded as’ disability claim; justiciability; security clearance; Department of Navy v. Egan; Department of Energy regulations 10 C.F.R. parts 712 and 1046<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC contracts with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, where the federal government stores spent nuclear fuel. Battelle employs Security Police Officers (SPOs) to guard the site. Each SPO must hold two separate certifications. The first is a fitness-for-duty certification under 10 C.F.R. Part 1046, which sets minimum medical and physical readiness standards (vision, hearing, musculoskeletal function, a half-mile run, and so on) and expressly requires reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The second is a Human Reliability Program (HRP) certification under 10 C.F.R. Part 712, the DOE’s most stringent reliability and security review for personnel with access to nuclear materials.<\/p>\n

Roman Gonzales worked as a Battelle SPO from 2005 to 2019 and managed a chronic back injury with prescription opioids the entire time, with Battelle’s knowledge. After a new program doctor began raising concerns about the long-term opioid use, Battelle suspended his HRP certification, reassigned him to a lower-paid badging job, and ultimately revoked his Part 1046 fitness-for-duty certification. He was terminated in January 2019.<\/p>\n

Gonzales sued under the ADA, alleging disability discrimination, “regarded as” discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful disclosure of medical information. After a five-day trial, a jury found for him on the “regarded as” and retaliation claims and against him on the others. Battelle moved for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that its decisions involved unreviewable national-security determinations under Department of the Navy v. Egan<\/em>, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). The district court denied the motion, and Battelle appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Ninth Circuit, joining the Sixth Circuit, affirmed. The panel held that a contractor’s revocation of an SPO’s Part 1046 fitness-for-duty certification is justiciable, even though related decisions about the HRP security clearance would not be. Because the jury’s ADA verdict rested on the fitness-for-duty revocation rather than on a true security-clearance call, federal courts had jurisdiction to review the claim.<\/p>\n

The court began with Egan<\/em>, in which the Supreme Court held that the executive branch’s decision to grant or deny a security clearance is a sensitive, predictive judgment committed to the agency’s discretion and not reviewable through ordinary employment processes. The Ninth Circuit explained that Egan<\/em>’s rule is narrow: it covers actual security-clearance decisions and similar predictive national-security judgments Congress has placed in the executive branch’s hands.<\/p>\n

Applying that framework, the panel concluded that Part 1046 fitness-for-duty determinations are different from HRP determinations in ways that matter. Part 1046 sets concrete medical and physical standards (vision thresholds, hearing levels, fitness tests). It does not turn on a predictive judgment about loyalty, trustworthiness, or access to classified information. It also expressly incorporates the ADA, including the duty to provide reasonable accommodation. By contrast, Part 712’s HRP regime is geared to access to nuclear materials and reliability assessments, and final HRP termination decisions are reserved to DOE itself, not the contractor.<\/p>\n

Because Part 1046 standards are not tied to predictive security determinations, a contractor’s decision to revoke a Part 1046 certification can be challenged under the ADA without offending Egan<\/em>. The court therefore affirmed the judgment, with Battelle’s remaining issues resolved in a parallel unpublished memorandum.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n