Zeinali v. Raytheon Co., 636 F.3d 544

Zeinali is of Iranian descent and employed by Raytheon for about four years in engineering roles requiring a security clearance.
Zeinali's positions initially required a Secret clearance; his interim clearance was denied but he remained employed pending final decision.
Zeinali later transferred to a role described as not requiring classified work due to lack of clearance.
In 2006 the DoD denied Zeinali's security clearance and advised he could reapply after one year, after which Raytheon decided to terminate him.
Raytheon asserted the termination was based on lack of clearance plus forecasted workload and performance issues.
Zeinali presented evidence that Raytheon retained non-Iranian engineers who lacked or lost clearances, suggesting a pretext for discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case is jurisdictionally barred by Egan-Dorfmont-Brazil	Zeinali argues private-employer discrimination claims are reviewable.	Raytheon argues Brazil bars review of any security-clearance-based termination.	No; court has jurisdiction over the discrimination claim.
Whether Zeinali's FEHA discrimination claim survives summary judgment	Zeinali showed non-Iranian engineers retained after clearance denials/ revocations.	Raytheon contends clearance denial was a bona fide job prerequisite.	Triable issues exist; pretext shown by disparate treatment.
Whether Raytheon's security-clearance requirement was a bona fide occupational qualification	Clearance was not applied evenly; other non-Iranian employees retained after revocation.	Clearance requirement was necessary for the job.	Material questions of fact preclude summary judgment.

Brazil v. U.S. Department of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193 (9th Cir. 1995) (barred review of security clearance decision in Title VII action against government)
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1988) (judgment on security clearance merits committed to executive branch)
Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1990) (extends Egan bar to judicial review of merits in security-clearance cases)
Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) (permits review of discrimination claims not strictly involving merits of clearance decision)
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (Cal. 2000) (California FEHA pretext and mixed-motive framework)
Beattie v. Boeing Co., 43 F.3d 559 (10th Cir. 1994) (private employer context; observed Egan-related constraints in security-clearance cases)
Moran v. Selig, 447 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2006) (similarly situated requirement for discrimination claims)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden shifting in discrimination cases)
Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (pretext evidence can be shown by comparison to similarly situated employees)
Davidson v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., No official reporter; 2007 WL 1231686 (E.D. Tenn. 2007) (unpublished; discussed distinctions between denials vs. revocations)