Ninth Circuit Allows ADA Claims to Proceed After Nuclear Security Contractor Revokes Employee’s Fitness-for-Duty Certification
Employers sometimes assume that safety-sensitive jobs create a legal safe harbor from disability discrimination claims. That assumption can be dangerous. A recent Ninth Circuit decision involving a nuclear facility security officer shows why.
In Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a private contractor’s decision to revoke an employee’s fitness-for-duty certification was subject to judicial review, even though the employee worked in a highly sensitive security role at a federal nuclear facility. The decision does not minimize legitimate safety and security concerns. It does, however, draw an important line between true national-security clearance decisions and ordinary employment decisions involving medical fitness, disability, and the ability to perform essential job functions.
A Security Officer, Prescription Pain Medication, and Years of No Performance Issues
Roman Gonzales worked for Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, a contractor for the United States Department of Energy. Battelle managed the Idaho National Laboratory, where the federal government stores spent nuclear fuel. As part of that work, Battelle employed Security Police Officers to protect nuclear storage sites.
Gonzales began working for Battelle as a Security Police Officer in 2005. Before he was hired, he had a back injury treated with prescription pain medication. Battelle knew about his condition and medication. In 2014, his physician increased his prescription dosage after his back condition worsened. Gonzales reported the change, and Battelle allowed him to keep working as a Security Police Officer so long as he did not take the medication within eight hours of work.
For several years, the arrangement apparently worked. Gonzales remained certified and continued working. The Ninth Circuit noted there had been no change in his medication or job performance when Battelle later revoked his fitness-for-duty certification.
Two Different Regulatory Systems Were at Issue
The case turned heavily on the difference between two federal regulatory schemes.
First, Security Police Officers had to satisfy medical, physical readiness, training, and performance standards under 10 C.F.R. § 1046. Those standards address whether security personnel can perform the essential functions of their duties, with or without reasonable accommodation. The regulation includes medical standards, physical readiness testing, and repeated references to reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Second, Security Police Officers were also subject to the Department of Energy’s Human Reliability Program, or HRP, under 10 C.F.R. § 712. That program is tied more directly to national security, reliability, access to sensitive materials, and DOE “Q” access authorization, the Department’s highest level of security clearance. Unlike § 1046, the HRP regulation does not mention ADA reasonable accommodation.
That distinction became critical. Battelle argued its actions were shielded from judicial review because they involved security determinations. Gonzales argued the challenged action was not a true security-clearance decision, but a fitness-for-duty decision tied to his medical condition and prescription medication.
The Events Leading to Termination
After Security Police Officers were enrolled in the HRP program in 2015, Gonzales remained certified through 2017. Battelle’s medical director knew he was prescribed opiates, and no performance concerns were raised.
In late 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services revised mandatory drug testing to include opiates. Gonzales had two random drug tests that came back positive for opiates, but the program doctor marked the results as negative under federal guidance because Gonzales had a legitimate medical explanation. Battelle renewed his § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification in May 2018.
The new program doctor later raised concerns about Gonzales’s long-term use of narcotics. Battelle temporarily suspended his HRP authorization, reassigned him to the badging office, and reduced his pay. Battelle reported the temporary HRP suspension to DOE, but according to the Ninth Circuit, Battelle never referred Gonzales for the follow-up evaluation it had described and never submitted the HRP issue to DOE for a final determination.
In November 2018, Battelle revoked Gonzales’s § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification. Around the same time, Gonzales learned management allegedly told some coworkers he was losing his job because he was an “opioid abuser.” Gonzales complained to HR and management. Battelle then gave him a notice of intent to terminate, citing the revoked § 1046 certification. He was terminated in January 2019 after he could not find another position with Battelle.
The Lawsuit and Jury Verdict
Gonzales sued Battelle in federal court in Idaho in February 2020. He alleged race discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and unlawful disclosure of confidential medical information under the ADA. The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial in August 2024.
The jury returned a mixed verdict. It found in Gonzales’s favor on his ADA retaliation claim and his “regarded as” disability discrimination claim. It rejected his claims for race discrimination, unlawful disclosure of medical information, and failure to accommodate.
Battelle moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the court should not have allowed the ADA claims to go to the jury because the claims arose from nonreviewable security determinations. The district court denied the motion. Battelle appealed.
Battelle’s Main Argument on Appeal
Battelle relied on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). In Egan, the Supreme Court held that certain security clearance decisions committed to the Executive Branch are not subject to ordinary review by outside bodies. The basic premise is that decisions about access to classified information often require predictive national-security judgments made by agencies with specialized expertise.
Battelle argued the same principle barred review of its decision to revoke Gonzales’s § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification. Because Security Police Officers protect nuclear facilities, Battelle argued fitness-for-duty decisions for those officers necessarily implicate national security.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed.
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held Battelle’s revocation of Gonzales’s § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification was reviewable.
The court recognized true security clearance decisions may be different. It also acknowledged other courts have treated DOE HRP certification decisions as the kind of security-related judgments covered by Egan. But the court emphasized that Gonzales was terminated based on Battelle’s revocation of his § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification, not a final DOE decision revoking his HRP certification.
The court described § 1046 as a regulatory scheme focused on medical standards, physical readiness, training, and performance standards. The regulation includes requirements such as hearing, vision, neurological, musculoskeletal, and other medical standards, along with physical readiness tests such as running, sprinting, agility, and firearms-related physical positioning. Those standards are important, but they are not the same as deciding whether a person can be trusted with classified information.
The court also found it significant that § 1046 expressly incorporates ADA concepts and reasonable accommodation. That made it harder for Battelle to argue § 1046 decisions are insulated from ADA review altogether. By contrast, the HRP regulation is more directly tied to national-security reliability determinations and does not contain the same ADA accommodation language.
Why the Distinction Between Security Clearance and Fitness for Duty Controlled the Case
The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning was practical. A security clearance decision often requires an agency to decide whether a person might compromise sensitive information. Courts are reluctant to second-guess those judgments because they involve classified information, national-security risk assessments, and Executive Branch authority.
A fitness-for-duty decision asks a different question: Can the employee physically, medically, and psychologically perform the job’s essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation?
Those issues may still involve safety. They may involve high-risk worksites. They may even involve nuclear facilities. But they remain familiar employment-law questions courts and juries address in ADA cases. The Ninth Circuit held Egan did not convert those questions into unreviewable security-clearance decisions merely because the workplace involved national security.
The court also rejected Battelle’s argument that § 1046 and HRP certifications were so intertwined that review of one necessarily meant review of the other. The court acknowledged the programs may overlap, but explained they serve different functions. HRP certification and § 1046 fitness-for-duty certification remained distinct prerequisites.
Practical Lessons for Employers
This case is especially important for employers operating in safety-sensitive, highly regulated, or government-contractor environments.
The first lesson is that “safety-sensitive” does not automatically mean “unreviewable.” Employers may enforce legitimate medical, physical, and safety standards, but those decisions may still be tested under disability discrimination laws. Employers should be prepared to show the decision was based on current, individualized evidence, not assumptions about a diagnosis, medication, or perceived impairment.
The second lesson concerns prescription medication. An employee’s lawful use of prescribed medication may raise legitimate fitness-for-duty questions, especially in jobs involving weapons, vehicles, machinery, hazardous materials, or public safety. But the employer’s response should be tied to actual job duties, medical evidence, regulatory requirements, and documented performance or safety concerns. Labels such as “opioid abuser,” if used loosely or without adequate basis, can create serious litigation risk.
The third lesson is procedural. Battelle’s argument was complicated by the fact that DOE had not made a final HRP revocation decision. Battelle temporarily suspended Gonzales’s HRP certification, but the termination was based on the § 1046 fitness-for-duty revocation. For employers, the identity of the decisionmaker, the source of the authority, and the stated basis for termination can become central issues in litigation.
The fourth lesson is that ADA language in an applicable regulation should be taken seriously. Where a regulation expressly references reasonable accommodation and the ability to perform essential functions with or without accommodation, an employer should assume ordinary ADA principles remain part of the analysis unless there is clear legal authority to the contrary.
The Bottom Line
Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC does not prevent employers from enforcing fitness-for-duty standards in sensitive positions. It does not require employers to ignore medication use, physical limitations, or safety concerns. It does, however, confirm that an employer cannot avoid ADA review merely by characterizing a medical fitness decision as a national-security determination.
For employers, the safest path remains a disciplined, evidence-based process: identify the essential job functions, determine the actual medical or safety concern, engage in the interactive process where required, consider reasonable accommodation where applicable, preserve confidentiality, and document the legitimate basis for any employment decision.
Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC was filed on April 16, 2026, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 25-1037.