Gonzales worked for Battelle for three years while taking prescribed pain medication for a chronic back injury. Battelle revoked his fitness-for-duty certification and terminated him after he tested positive for prescription opiates on random drug tests, despite no change in his medication dosage or job performance.
The district court denied Battelle's motions for judgment as a matter of law. A jury found for Gonzales on his retaliation and regarded-as discrimination claims under the ADA, while rejecting his other causes of action.
On appeal, Battelle argued the certification revocation was a security clearance determination vested with the Department of Energy and therefore not justiciable. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, holding that the medical and physical standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 1046 are not tied to predictive security determinations.
The panel aligned with the Sixth Circuit in distinguishing the fitness-for-duty certification from the DOE Human Reliability Program clearance. HRP decisions involve predictive national security judgments shielded from judicial review under Dep't of Navy v. Egan, the panel said, while the Section 1046 certification ensures only that an officer can perform essential functions.
The court noted that the Section 1046 regulation explicitly requires reasonable accommodations pursuant to the ADA. Because the revocation turned on medical and physical standards rather than predictive security suitability, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review it.
The panel affirmed the district court's judgment in a memorandum disposition that also addressed Battelle's other grounds for appeal.