The Ninth Circuit rejected the employer’s argument that its revocation of his fitness-for-duty certification was a nonreviewable security clearance decision.
A security officer for Batelle Energy Alliance, LLC, fired after the Department of Energy contractor revoked his security clearance based on his use of prescription pain medication, properly prevailed at trial on his retaliation and regarded-as-disabled discrimination claims, the Ninth Circuit held. Aligning with the Sixth Circuit, the appeals court rejected Batelle’s argument that its revocation of the guard’s fitness-for-duty certification, a requirement for security personnel under 10 C.F.R. § 1046, was a nonreviewable security clearance decision vested with the Department of Energy. The revocation here was instead justiciable because the medical and physical standards set forth in Section 1046 are not tied to predictive security determinations, the court found (Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, No. 25-1037 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026)).
Idaho National Laboratory and SPOs. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC, contracted with the Department of Energy (DOE) to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, where, among other things, the government stores spent nuclear fuel. As part of its contractual obligations with DOE, Battelle employed Security Police Officers (SPOs) to protect the nuclear storage sites. Battelle and its SPO employees were required to comply with several DOE regulations, two of which are relevant here.
10...
By Victor Ahiuma-Young The National Pension Commission (PenCom) has introduced stricter advertising rules for Pension Fund Administrators, PFAs, warning operators against false claims, misleading ...