Posted on 01/13/2008 1:01:46 PM PST by Haddit
A federal judge blocked the government from conducting background checks of low-risk employees at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory after an appeals court said the investigations threatened the constitutional rights of workers.
U.S. District Judge Otis Wright issued the injunction Friday after the U.S. 9th 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 the U.S. space agency 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
These guys are already employed there. It is a change to previously-agreed working conditions.
I had to pass a complete background check to work at Sikorsky and it didn;t bother me one whit.
Personally, I would just eliminate the job descriptions if the 9th circus had to intervene, and start again.
Just remember that you’re supporting a ruling from the Ninth Circle-Jerk Court of Appeals for the United States.
IMO, JPL is validly a top level security institution. As such, I believe background checks are justified.
If someone had slipped through before, I would like to have that rectified now, before something bad happened.
Heck - a BUNCH of private sector jobs now require background checks... why shouldn’t working at JPL be any different?
Runaway Judicial System, Inc.
This is “at will” employment. They’re not required to work there.
A backgroung investigation the terms currently or what we’re going to change to. You don’t like it...then get a job elsewhere...like the in private sector. Let’s see how that works out for you.
Not. I’ve read the opinion. While the 9th is clearly screwy a lot of the time, and particularly in the national security context, the government’s position here was flat out ludicrous.
My son just got a job at an insurance company and he had to provide xerox copy of his college diploma that he got years ago. They did extensive background check. Big deal. I worked at a bank and if they asked you to do lie detector test, you had to do it. I never had to.
How?
I am “at will” retired now and I will not let Hillarat change that!
Why? If security concerns have changed today, why should new recruits be subject to a level of scrutiny that current employees aren’t. Everyone that works there works under today’s increased need for security.
Here’s another way to look at it. Should all employees have to be exposed to potential danger, just to please the current employees who haven’t had to go through as rigid a security process? Don’t they have rights?
“I had to pass a complete background check to work at Sikorsky and it didn;t bother me one whit.”
As someone who does background checks on employees its become apparent to me that the people who have problems with these are those who have something to hide.
Any JPL employee who objects to background checks, has something he/she does not want their employer to know about them and do not need the Constitution to protect their jobs as it was always a privilege NOT A RIGHT!
Announcements – Notifications of Activism events, FR business
Breaking News - Not every story is breaking news. Breaking news should be news that affects most of us. There are some exceptions. If there is a hot current event happening, check breaking news. Most likely, it's there already, please check first, then use our search function.
Editorial - Editorials are opinions. Some vanities, if well written and thought out can be considered editorial material.
Extended News - Extended news is for stories which have been posted previously and have updated or newer information.
Free Republic - This category is reserved for Free Republic business.
Front Page News - Front page is for stories which are not breaking news, but would be found on the front page of a newspaper.
So if you catch a spy working, you cannot fire him are put him in jail. I think I will call BS on your statement. Most all sensitive positions in the government that people sign wavers on say that the rules are subject to change.
If they want to investigate them, I don’t see why they don’t just go ahead and do it. Why ask permission?
Because they can’t access the records without prior consent or a court order issued on probable cause.
Gee, NASA gets some cleared work and needs cleared employees.
What’s so difficult about that ?
Jobs change, and their requirements change with them. . .
Adapt or die. .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.