Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for Roman Gonzales following a jury trial on his Americans with Disabilities Act claims against Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC. The court held that Battelle’s revocation of Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification under 10 C.F.R. § 1046 was reviewable and was not insulated from judicial review under Department of Navy v. Egan, unlike agency-level security-clearance determinations under the DOE Human Reliability Program. The court affirmed the denial of Battelle’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Battelle's revocation of Gonzales's § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification was a nonjusticiable security-clearance decision under Department of the Navy v. Egan.
- Whether the district court properly denied Battelle's motion for judgment as a matter of law based on the asserted nonjusticiability of the ADA claims.
- Whether Battelle's temporary suspension of Gonzales's Human Reliability Program certification was nonreviewable under Egan.
Holdings
- The revocation of Gonzales's § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification was subject to judicial review and was not insulated by Egan's bar on review of security-clearance determinations.
- The court rejected Battelle's argument that Egan barred review of its temporary suspension of Gonzales's HRP certification because DOE retained authority to make the final revocation decision and Battelle did not follow the regulatory procedure for obtaining that decision.
Key quotations
“Egan stands for the proposition that when agencies make security clearance determinations and other similarly predictive national security judgments that Congress vested in those agencies, the resulting decisions are nonjusticiable.” (at 11)
“The § 1046 certification is qualitatively distinct from HRP security clearances; and security clearances, not physical and psychological fitness-for-duty tests, were at issue in Egan.” (at 14-15)
“Egan insulated from judicial review decisions concerned with the risk that individuals granted access to sensitive information may disseminate that information, not review of certificates concerned with whether employees are physically or psychologically capable of performing their jobs.” (at 15)
“For these reasons, Battelle’s decision to revoke Gonzales’s § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification is reviewable.” (at 17)
Factual background
Battelle, a Department of Energy contractor operating the Idaho National Laboratory, employed Gonzales as a Security Police Officer. Gonzales had a chronic back injury treated with prescription opiates, and Battelle knew of his condition and medication; despite a dosage increase and positive opiate tests with legitimate medical explanations, he continued working and his fitness certifications were renewed. Battelle later suspended his Human Reliability Program authorization, revoked his separate fitness-for-duty certification under 10 C.F.R. § 1046, and terminated him after he could not find another position. The jury found for Gonzales on ADA retaliation and regarded-as disability discrimination claims.
Procedural history
Gonzales sued Battelle in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information under the ADA. After a five-day jury trial, the jury found for Gonzales on retaliation and regarded-as discrimination claims and rejected his other claims. The district court denied Battelle's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial and entered final judgment, which Battelle timely appealed.