Another debt ceiling debacle could sink the economy
Last year's Congressional debt standoff hurt consumer confidence more than the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Betsey Johnson and Justin Wolfers write. This time could be worse. Read more at Counterparties
Supreme Court upholds NASA employee background checks
The Space Shuttle Discovery is shown on launch pad 39A at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, November 5, 2010.
Credit: Reuters/Scott Audette
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The government in its background investigations of employees can ask about their drug treatment, medical conditions or other personal information, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a case that pitted privacy rights against national security concerns.
The high court unanimously upheld the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's background checks of scientists in California and ruled the questions do not violate the employees' constitutional privacy rights.
The Obama administration had defended the routine background security investigations and described them as standard for millions of federal employees since 1953 and for contractors since 2005.
It said that NASA facilities have sensitive information, that the questions can be justified partly on national security grounds and that adequate privacy safeguards existed to prevent any improper disclosures.
The ruling was a defeat for 28 scientists, engineers and other employees who challenged the in-depth background checks required at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California as needlessly intrusive.
The longtime contract employees, who had been classified as low risk, refused to submit to the checks for information on medical treatment or counseling for drug use or any other adverse information, including private sexual matters.
Government background checks typically include inquiries to an employee's neighbors and friends in seeking personal information, such as emotional and financial stability.
The laboratory, owned by the space agency and operated by the California Institute of Technology, is known for developing satellites, rockets, spacecraft and telescopes.
NASA in 2007 required that every employee undergo the background investigation as a condition to being allowed access to the facilities. Employees who do not agree to the checks could lose their jobs.
The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that had blocked NASA from conducting the background checks.
In the Supreme Court's opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said the challenged questions are reasonable, employment-related inquiries that further the government's interests in managing its internal operations.
Alito said the questions about drug treatment or counseling are a reasonable follow-up to inquiries about illegal drug use, and that the challenged questions are part of a standard background check used by millions of private employers.
He said the government has an interest in conducting background checks to ensure the security of its facilities and to employ a competent, reliable workforce, and there are sufficient protections against disclosure of the information to the public.
The Supreme Court case is NASA v. Nelson, No. 09-530.
(Editing by Vicki Allen)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
The bottom line is… do we want a society where even the most mundane employment requires one to submit to a complete privacy strip search and permanent submission of your bio-metric data to the Government? That is where we are headed folks if people continue to accept these practices. The Supreme Court did a grave injustice to folks on this one.
In Quon, the employer reviewed text messages that police department employees sent using employer-owned electronic devices. In NASA, the employer was obtaining information (including information about use of illegal drugs and medical treatment for such drug use) in the course of conducting background checks.
In both NASA and Quon, the Supreme Court declined to decide whether the employees had protectable privacy rights. Instead, the Court found that – even if such rights exist – the actions taken by the employers did not violate those rights.
In Quon, for example, the Court held that the employer had a legitimate business interest for reviewing texts sent by police department employees, and that process used to review the texts was reasonable under the circumstances. In NASA, the employer likewise had a legitimate business interest for conducting background checks on individuals working at NASA’ jet propulsion lab, and the questions on the background check documents were reasonably tailored to obtain information appropriate for that endeavor.
By declining to decide whether the employees had protectable privacy rights, the Supreme Court left the door wide open for employees to make claims alleging violations of their rights to digital privacy and privacy with respect to information collected by employers. In addition, by finding that such rights (if they exist) were not violated, the Court established standards to which businesses will be held accountable, and provided a framework for them to use to comply with these standards.
In light of these two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, businesses need to assess whether their policies and procedures comply with the standards set forth in NASA and Quon, and establish protocols that will help avoid employees and their attorneys making claims alleging violations of privacy rights.
Follow Reuters