Gonzales v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
ROMAN T. GONZALES,
Plaintiff,
v.
BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE,
LLC,
Defendant.
Case No. 4:20-cv-00102-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff Roman T. Gonzales’s Motion for Contempt for
Defendant’s Failure to Reinstate Plaintiff (Dkt. 196). For the reasons explained
below, the Court will deny the Motion.
BACKGROUND
In August 2024, a jury found for Mr. Gonzales on his claims of disability
discrimination and retaliation against his former employer, Battelle Energy
Alliance. After the trial, Mr. Gonzales moved for reinstatement, and Battelle
moved for renewed judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial. In
February 2025, the Court denied Battelle’s motion and ordered Mr. Gonzales
reinstated. Battelle appealed and sought to stay reinstatement pending the appeal.
Case 4:20-cv-00102-BLW Document 208 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 6

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2
On June 2, 2025, this Court issued an order denying the motion to stay.
Counsel for Mr. Gonzales immediately wrote to Battelle to coordinate the
reinstatement process. Battelle responded that it planned to seek a stay in the Ninth
Circuit under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. By late July,
however, Battelle still had not filed its Rule 8 motion. On July 29, Battelle
informed Mr. Gonzales’s counsel that it would finally submit the motion. On July
30, Mr. Gonzales filed the present Motion for Contempt. Battelle filed its Rule 8
motion on same day, sixty days after this Court’s denial of the stay.
On August 27, 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied Battelle’s Rule 8 motion. On
September 3, Battelle sent Mr. Gonzales a reinstatement offer with a start date of
September 8, though it apparently included several terms inconsistent with his
previous position. The parties spent several weeks negotiating details—a process
that included lengthy response delays from Battelle—and Mr. Gonzales reported
for work on September 22, 2025.1
LEGAL STANDARD
Civil contempt “consists of a party’s disobedience to a specific and definite
court order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party’s power to
1 On January 5, 2026, Gonzales filed a second motion for sanctions related to post-reinstatement
actions by Battelle. Dkt. 206. That motion presents independent issues, so there is no need to
need to delay the Court’s ruling on the present matter.
Case 4:20-cv-00102-BLW Document 208 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 6

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3
comply.” In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693,
695 (9th Cir. 1993). The “decision to hold a party in contempt of a court order rests
with the sound discretion of the trial court.” Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission
Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1022 (9th Cir.1985). A party seeking civil contempt
must show by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor (1)
violated the court order, (2) beyond substantial compliance, and (3) without basis
in a reasonable and good faith interpretation of the order. Lab./Cmty. Strategy Ctr.
v. Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115, 1123 (9th Cir. 2009).
Once the movant makes this showing, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to
“demonstrate why they were unable to comply.” Stone v. City & Cnty. of San
Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th Cir. 1992). Civil contempt does not require
a finding of willfulness. Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554, 561 (2019).
Substantial compliance with a court order is a defense to civil contempt.
Coleman v. Newsom, 131 F.4th 948, 956 (9th Cir. 2025). To establish a substantial-
compliance defense, the alleged contemnor must show it “has taken all reasonable
steps to comply with applicable court orders, resulting in merely technical or
inadvertent violations of those orders. In other words, the substantial compliance
defense excuses an alleged contemnor who, despite not achieving total compliance,
has achieved near-total compliance through the exhaustion of all reasonable
efforts.” Id. (cleaned up). Civil contempt should also “not be resorted to where
Case 4:20-cv-00102-BLW Document 208 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 6

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4
there is [a] fair ground of doubt as to the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct.”
Taggart, 587 U.S. at 561 (citing California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor,
113 U.S. 609, 618 (1885)) (emphasis in original).
ANALYSIS
Gonzales’ contempt motion hinges on Battelle’s delay in complying with
this Court’s order of reinstatement. Dkt. 196-1 at 2. Gonzales has failed to show
that Battelle violated the Court’s order by clear and convincing evidence.
The record establishes that Battelle substantially complied with the Court’s
order for reinstatement, albeit in a rather unexemplary manner. Battelle informed
Gonzales of its intent to seek a stay from the Ninth Circuit under Rule 8 and
ultimately filed such motion on July 30. Although coordination between trial and
appellate counsel resulted in a 60-day delay—and the Court does not endorse the
pace of that effort—Battelle pursued appellate relief consistent with the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. After the Ninth Circuit denied the Rule 8 motion,
Battelle promptly coordinated Gonzales’ return to work, and he was ultimately
reinstated in September. Based on this, the Court finds that Battelle substantially
complied with the reinstatement order. For the same reasons, the Court also
concludes that Battelle acted on a good-faith interpretation of the order. Because
Gonzales has not shown a violation of the reinstatement order by clear and
convincing evidence, the additional remedies he seeks—including coercive
Case 4:20-cv-00102-BLW Document 208 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 6

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5
sanctions, compensatory relief, and attorney’s fees—are unwarranted.
The Court does not, however, accept Battelle’s argument that that the
absence of an express deadline in the reinstatement order renders the order
insufficiently specific for contempt purposes. The omission of a deadline does not
relieve a party of its obligation to promptly comply with a court order. See Maness
v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 458 (1975) (“[A]ll orders and judgments of courts must
be complied with promptly.”). And, as this Court has previously explained, “[a]
court order is a court order, whether or not it contains a specific deadline for
compliance. In other words, failure to comply with a court-ordered deadline may
be sufficient, but is not necessary, for a finding of contempt.” Carbajal v. Hayes
Mgmt. Serv., Inc., No. 4:19-cv-00287-BLW (D. Idaho Nov. 9, 2023). Nonetheless,
given the lack of an explicit reinstatement deadline, and Battelle’s stated intent to
seek appellate relief, the Court finds a fair ground of doubt as to whether Battelle’s
conduct violated the reinstatement order. See Taggart, 587 U.S. at 561.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt for Defendant’s
Failure to Reinstate Plaintiff (Dkt. 196) is DENIED.
Case 4:20-cv-00102-BLW Document 208 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 6

M EMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6
DATED: February 3, 2026
_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
U.S. District Court Judge
Case 4:20-cv-00102-BLW Document 208 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 6