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Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROMAN T. GONZALES, No. 25-1037 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 4:20-cv-00102-BLW v. MEMORANDUM* BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE, LLC, 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 Before: BEA, CHRISTEN, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. A jury found in favor of Roman Gonzales on two of the employment discrimination claims he brought against Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC. Battelle appeals from the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a) and (b), or in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59. Separately, Battelle appeals the denial of its motion in limine * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. seeking to limit the testimony of Gonzales’s treating physician. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review de novo questions of law. Bynoe v. Baca, 966 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2020). “We review de novo the district court’s denial of a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b).” E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation modified). But when “ruling on a Rule 50(b) motion based on grounds not previously asserted in a Rule 50(a) motion,” we are limited to plain error review. Id. We review the district court’s ruling on a Rule 59 motion and its evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Id. at 962; BillFloat Inc. v. Collins Cash Inc., 105 F.4th 1269, 1275 (9th Cir. 2024). Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those necessary to resolve the issues presented in this memorandum disposition. Battelle forfeited its argument that the district court made an error of law by not requiring Gonzales to exhaust the review procedure set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 1046 before filing suit in district court. “[F]orfeiture is the ‘failure to make the timely assertion of a right.’” Lui v. DeJoy, 129 F.4th 770, 780 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 20 n.1 (2017)). Typically, “an affirmative defense, once forfeited, is excluded from the case, and, as a rule, cannot be asserted on appeal.” Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 470 2 25-1037 (2012) (citation modified).1 Apart from its Answer to Gonzales’s complaint, where Battelle made a general assertion that Gonzales failed to exhaust, Battelle raises the § 1046 exhaustion procedure for the first time on appeal. Battelle points to two places in the record where it claims to have raised this defense. The first is a letter Battelle filed in the district court after opening statements. The letter explained the certification process under § 1046, but it did not contend that Gonzales was required to exhaust the § 1046 review process prior to filing suit. Instead, Battelle merely repeated its argument that the judiciary was precluded from reviewing Battelle’s decision to revoke Gonzales’s § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification because “the ultimate decision-making authority