You are not logged in...
chron.comNews, search and shopping from the Houston Chronicle
Today's Weather
Pt. Sunny Scattered Clouds
MORE ->
NOW HIGH LOW
62° 68° 45°
Chronicle

Jan. 12, 2008, 4:09PM
Appeals court blocks some NASA background checks

TOOLS

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge blocked the government Friday from conducting background checks of low-risk employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory after an appeals court said the investigations threaten the constitutional rights of workers.

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright issued the injunction after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his earlier ruling and issued a sharp rebuke to the judge.

The higher court said the 28 scientists and engineers who refused to submit to the background checks faced "a stark choice — either violation of their constitutional rights or loss of their jobs."

The workers sued the federal government, claiming that NASA was invading their privacy by requiring the investigations, which included probes into medical records and questioning of friends about everything from their finances to their sex lives.

If they didn't agree to the checks, they were to be barred from the JPL campus and fired.

"We're ecstatic," workers' attorney Dan Stormer said. "This represents a vindication of constitutional protections that all of us are entitled to. It prevents the government from conducting needless searches into backgrounds."

NASA has argued that requiring employees to submit to the investigations was not intrusive and that the directive followed a Bush administration policy applying to millions of civil servants and contractors.

Every government agency was ordered to step up security by issuing new identification badges. Employees were required to be fingerprinted, undergo background checks and allow federal investigators access to personal information.

The plaintiffs have worked for many years at the labs that are run for NASA by the California Institute of Technology. JPL is known for its scientific explorations of space and study of Earth.

Veronica McGregor, a spokeswoman for Caltech and JPL, said Friday afternoon, "We are going to abide by any decisions made by the court."

The decision written by Judge Kim Wardlaw reversed a ruling by Wright and sent the case back to him with orders to "fashion a preliminary injunctive relief consistent with this opinion."

The higher court said Wright abused his discretion and committed several errors when he ruled that there was no merit to the claim that the scientists would suffer irreparable harm by signing the authorization forms.

It said that the lower court was wrong to conclude that the form which employees were asked to sign was "narrowly tailored."

"This form seeks highly personal information using an open-ended technique including asking for 'any adverse information which ... may have a bearing on this person's suitability for government employment,'" Wardlaw wrote. "There is nothing 'narrowly tailored' about such a broad inquisition."

The decision appeared to reverse a ruling by Wright late Thursday dismissing Caltech as a defendant in the lawsuit. The 9th Circuit said any injunction also must apply to Caltech.

It said the case "raises serious questions as to whether the university has in fact now become a willful and joint participant in NASA's investigation program, even though it was not so initially."

At a hearing Friday, Wright entered the injunction and heard lengthy arguments on whether Caltech should be returned to its status as a defendant in the case. He declined to change his ruling on that issue but agreed to receive written submissions on the question, McGregor said.

None of the plaintiffs work on top-secret projects at JPL, which employs about 5,000 workers, but several are involved in high-profile missions, such as the Galileo probe to Jupiter and the Cassini spacecraft to Saturn.


COMMENTS
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.

Most recent comments
User Image
destro wrote:
#########################################
sam_j wrote:
Since when did you have a constitutional right to a job? Unless you have a contract you are an at-will employee, at-will to be fired and at-will to quit.
#########################################
You don't get it. Employers have to abide by the constitution, unless you're Blackwater or Halliburton. LOL.
1/12/2008 4:14 PM CST
User Image
destro wrote:
#########################################
Frank_49 wrote:
What's the problem if they have nothing to hide?
#########################################

No problem other than forfeiting your constitutional rights.
1/12/2008 4:07 PM CST
User Image
... and we would expect nothing more or less from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ... what a bunch o' fools .....
1/12/2008 1:50 PM CST
User Image
lsufan wrote:
There is nothing wrong with bakground checks for government employees. I have been through the process and, while the questions are detailed, it is a simple process. If these individuals do not want to submit, then they should be fired and denied future government employment.
1/12/2008 1:45 PM CST
User Image
jim5892 wrote:
My guess is that these workers have some very bad stuff to hide, or are wanted somewhere.....there are some things that go with working for the Federal Government...some one needs to beat that Judge to within a inch of his life.
1/12/2008 12:50 PM CST
 1 2 >> Last

MORE STORIES
IN Chronicle
TopJobs