870 F.3d 1185
10th Cir.2017Background
- Sanchez was an Emergency Operations Specialist with the DOE’s Office of Secure Transportation; the role required HRP certification because it involved transportation support for nuclear convoys.
- After making repeated reading errors during mission briefings, Sanchez was evaluated by HRP psychologists and decertified from the HRP based on a diagnosed reading disorder; he was removed from HRP duties and later suspended and terminated.
- Sanchez repeatedly requested reassignment to non-HRP (non-security-sensitive) positions and sought accommodations; supervisors (notably Vukosovich) did not reassign him despite available non-HRP vacancies.
- Sanchez sued under the Rehabilitation Act (failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, retaliation) and for procedural due process (alleging biased decisionmaker). The district court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing all claims, relying in part on Department of the Navy v. Egan.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held the HRP revocation is a security-clearance decision under Egan, but distinguished claims that challenge the clearance decision’s merits from claims that seek relief unrelated to that core decision (e.g., reassignment to non-HRP jobs).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Egan bars judicial review of claims arising from HRP revocation | Egan should not bar review of Sanchez’s failure-to-accommodate claim because he seeks reassignment to non-HRP jobs and does not challenge the HRP revocation’s merits | Egan bars review of any claims that are connected to or flow from a security-clearance/HRP revocation, including reassignment denials and termination that followed decertification | HRP revocation is a security-clearance decision under Egan, but Egan does not bar review of a failure-to-accommodate claim limited to reassignment to non-HRP positions; Egan bars the due-process claim attacking the merits/bias of the HRP decision |
| Whether HRP revocation is a security-clearance decision for Egan purposes | Sanchez contended HRP revocation here was a safety (not security) decision and thus outside Egan | DOE argued HRP decisions implicate national security and are insulated under Egan | Court held HRP revocation qualifies as a security-clearance decision under Egan (closely tied to national security and executive authority) |
| Whether denial of reassignment/accommodation is reviewable despite Egan | Sanchez: claims about failure to reassign to non-HRP jobs do not require review of HRP merits and are thus reviewable under the Rehabilitation Act | DOE: reassignment denial and termination flowed from the HRP revocation and thus are insulated by Egan; plaintiff must show HRP decertification was based solely on disability to get reassignment | Court held failure-to-accommodate claim is reviewable because it seeks non-sensitive reassignment and does not require second-guessing the HRP decision; plaintiff plausibly pleaded ‘‘otherwise qualified’’ for vacant non-HRP positions |
| Whether Sanchez pleaded a viable failure-to-accommodate claim under the Rehabilitation Act | Sanchez alleged disability (reading impairment), repeated requests for reassignment, and identified 29 non-HRP vacancies he could perform | DOE argued Sanchez failed the "otherwise qualified" element and thus dismissal was proper | Court held Sanchez plausibly alleged all elements (disabled, otherwise qualified for non-HRP vacancies, requested accommodation) and reversed dismissal of Claim 1; other claims (disparate treatment, retaliation, procedural due process) affirmed dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (Sup. Ct.) (security-clearance decisions are committed to Executive Branch and generally not subject to external review)
- Foote v. Moniz, 751 F.3d 656 (D.C. Cir.) (HRP revocations deemed security-clearance decisions under Egan)
- Duane v. U.S. Dep’t of Defense, 275 F.3d 988 (10th Cir.) (Egan bars judicial review of security-clearance decisions but leaves room to review claims that do not challenge clearance merits)
- Fitzgerald v. Corrections Corp. of America, 403 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir.) (framework for showing "otherwise qualified" and the ‘‘solely by reason of disability’’ language in accommodation claims)