Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC

── Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROMAN T. GONZALES, No. 25-1037 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:20-cv-00102- BLW v. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC, OPINION Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted February 4, 2026 Portland, Oregon Filed April 16, 2026 Before: Carlos T. Bea, Morgan B. Christen, and Roopali H. Desai, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Christen 2 GONZALES V. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC SUMMARY * Employment Discrimination The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment after a jury trial in favor of Roman Gonzales in his action under the Americans with Disabilities Act against Batelle Energy Alliance, LLC. Batelle contracts with the United States Department of Energy to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, where the government stores spent nuclear fuel. Batelle revoked Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification and terminated his employment as a Security Police Officer because of his use of prescription pain medication. The jury found in favor of Gonzales on his retaliation and “regarded as” discrimination claims, and the district court denied Batelle’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Aligning with the Sixth Circuit, the panel rejected Batelle’s argument that its revocation of Gonzales’s fitness- for-duty certification, a requirement for security personnel under 10 C.F.R. § 1046, was not justiciable because it was a nonreviewable security clearance decision vested with the Department of Energy. Under Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), when agencies make security clearance determinations and other similarly predictive national security judgments that Congress vested in those agencies, the resulting decisions are nonjusticiable. The revocation of Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification, however, was justiciable because the medical and physical standards set * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  GONZALES V. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC 3 forth in § 1046 are not tied to predictive security determinations. The panel affirmed Batelle’s other grounds for appeal in a simultaneously filed memorandum disposition. COUNSEL DeAnne Casperson (argued), Amanda E. Ulrich, and Ryan S. Dustin, Casperson Ulrich Dustin PLLC, Idaho Falls, Idaho, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Kelsey VanOverloop (argued), Littler Mendelson PC, Denver, Colorado; Thomas M. Metzger, Littler Mendelson PC, Columbus, Ohio; Amelia A. McDermott, Littler Mendelson PC, San Diego, California; Gregory G. Iskander, Littler Mendelson PC, Walnut Creek, California; for Defendant-Appellant. 4 GONZALES V. BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC OPINION CHRISTEN, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises from Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC’s decision to terminate Roman Gonzales’s employment as a Security Police Officer because of his use of prescription pain medication. For three years, Gonzales worked for Battelle, a contractor for the United States Department of Energy, and took prescribed opiates to treat a chronic back injury without issue. Despite no change in Gonzales’s medication or job performance, Battelle revoked Gonzales’s fitness-for-duty certification and terminated him on that basis. Gonzales sued Battelle for disability discrimination pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. A jury found in favor of Gonzal