Roman Gonzales worked as a Security Police Officer for Battelle Energy Alliance, a contractor managing the Idaho National Laboratory. For three years, Gonzales used prescription opiates to treat a chronic back injury without issue. In 2018, after Battelle hired a new medical director and updated drug testing protocols, concerns were raised about Gonzales's long-term use of narcotics. Although his medication dosage had not changed since 2014, Battelle revoked his fitness-for-duty certification under 10 C.F.R. § 1046 and terminated his employment. Gonzales sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in his favor on those claims. Battelle appealed, arguing that the revocation of the certification was a nonjusticiable security clearance decision under Department of Navy v. Egan, which generally bars judicial review of such determinations.
The Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Christen, affirmed the district court's judgment by distinguishing between two separate regulatory schemes governing security personnel at the laboratory: the Human Reliability Program (HRP) and the fitness-for-duty standards under 10 C.F.R. § 1046. The court acknowledged that under Egan, decisions regarding security clearances and predictive national security judgments are committed to the Executive Branch and are nonjusticiable. However, the court reasoned that the HRP and § 1046 serve fundamentally different purposes. The HRP is designed to ensure individuals meet the highest standards of reliability and do not represent security concerns, involving predictive judgments about potential threats to national security. In contrast, § 1046 establishes specific medical, physical, and performance standards to ensure employees can effectively perform essential functions, such as running, shooting, and using firearms. The court noted that § 1046 includes explicit requirements for reasonable accommodation under the ADA, whereas the HRP does not. Because the revocation of Gonzales's certification was based on his physical and psychological capacity to perform the job rather than a predictive judgment about his reliability or threat to national security, the Egan bar to judicial review did not apply. The court aligned its reasoning with the Sixth Circuit's decision in Hale v. Johnson, which similarly held that Egan does not protect decisions regarding an individual's physical capacity to guard a nuclear plant.
The decision clarifies that government contractors managing nuclear facilities cannot use the Egan doctrine to shield fitness-for-duty determinations from ADA liability. Employers must distinguish between security clearance decisions, which are nonjusticiable, and medical or physical fitness assessments, which remain subject to judicial review. The case is remanded to the district court to enforce the jury's verdict, and the ruling leaves open the question of whether temporary suspensions of HRP certifications by contractors are reviewable if the DOE has not made a final revocation decision.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download