Fitness-for-Duty Certifications Require Individual Assessments

Takeaway: Fitness-for-duty certifications based on medical and physical standards remain subject to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, even in national security settings. Employers also need to conduct an individualized assessment regarding an employee’s lawful use of prescription medication in connection with fitness-for-duty determinations. 

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court judgment in favor of a security police officer (SPO) on his ADA discrimination and retaliation claims against his former employer, Battelle Energy Alliance LLC. 

SPOs who work at U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities are required to maintain a security clearance to access classified information and a fitness-for-duty certification to establish medical and physical standards necessary to perform their jobs. The appeals court held that Battelle’s revocation of the plaintiff’s fitness-for-duty certification was not shielded from judicial review.

Toolkit: Accommodating Employees’ Disabilities

Battelle contracted with the DOE to manage the Idaho National Laboratory, where the government stores spent nuclear fuel. The plaintiff began work as an SPO in 2005 and had a pre-existing back injury treated with prescription opioid medication, a condition and treatment Battelle knew about since his hire. 

Battelle required the plaintiff to report any updates to his condition and medications and to complete an annual fitness-for-duty certification. He continued to take prescribed opiates for 12 years without incident and with no change in his medication or job performance. 

In 2017, after Battelle hired a new program doctor, the doctor raised concerns about the plaintiff’s long-term use of prescription opiates. The doctor raised these concerns despite marking the plaintiff’s drug test results as “negative,” as the plaintiff had a legitimate medical explanation for the positive opiate result. The doctor’s concerns led Battelle to suspend the plaintiff’s security clearance, which led to his reassignment into a different role at reduced pay and, ultimately, the revocation of his fitness-for-duty certification. 

The plaintiff alleged in a complaint to HR that management had told co-workers he was losing his job for being an “opioid abuser.” Shortly thereafter, Battelle terminated the plaintiff’s employment.

Newsletter: Subscribe to SHRM Workplace Compliance News 

The plaintiff sued Battelle, alleging “regarded as” disability discrimination and retaliation. The jury returned a mixed verdict, finding in the plaintiff’s favor on his retaliation and “regarded as” discrimination claims, and the 9th Circuit affirmed.

The 9th Circuit addressed Battelle’s procedural argument that its fitness-for-duty decision was shielded from judicial review as a national security determination. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent in the 1988 decision of Department of Navy v. Egan, security clearance decisions are nonjusticiable because they involve predictive judgments about whether an individual might compromise classified information, a determination Congress committed to appropriate federal agencies instead of courts or private employers. 

The appeals court rejected Battelle’s argument, distinguishing between security clearance decisions (assessing risk of classified information disclosure) and fitness-for-duty standards (assessing whether an employee can safely perform job functions). Because the fitness-for-duty certification requires ADA compliance and involves objective physical and medical standards, rather than predictive security judgments, the court held that Battelle’s fitness-for-duty decision was reviewable. 

Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance LLC, 9th Cir., 25-1037 (April 16, 2026). 

Jessica Goldstein is an attorney with Duane Morris in New York City.