Gonzales, who had a chronic back injury, worked for Battelle for three years while taking prescribed pain medication. Despite no change in his medication dosage or job performance, Battelle revoked his fitness-for-duty certification and terminated his employment following positive random drug tests.
The district court denied Battelle’s motions for judgment as a matter of law, allowing the case to proceed to a jury. The jury found in favor of Gonzales on his retaliation and “regarded as” discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while rejecting his other causes of action.
On appeal, Battelle argued that the revocation of Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification was a nonreviewable security clearance decision vested with the Department of Energy, and thus not justiciable. The Ninth Circuit rejected this 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 (HRP) clearance. While HRP decisions involve predictive national security judgments protected from judicial review under *Dep’t of Navy v. Egan*, the § 1046 certification merely ensures an officer can perform essential functions.
The court noted that the § 1046 regulation explicitly requires reasonable accommodations pursuant to the ADA. Because the certification was based on medical and physical standards rather than predictive security suitability, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the revocation.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in a memorandum disposition addressing Battelle’s other grounds for appeal.