Judge Denies NASA Employees' Civil Liberties Case

In the ongoing case of my wife (and all other NASA employees and theoretically all Federal employees) vs. Homeland Security (see earlier entries for details: Part I (overview); Part II (the Suitability Matrix); Part III (the resignation letter)), the civil liberties of Federal employees just got dealt a setback. A judge just denied the case of 28 employees of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab to get court protection from excessively intrusive personal background investigations:

Media Advisory

JPL Employees vs Caltech, NASA and Department of Commerce
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12

For Immediate Release Oct 3, 2007

JPL Employees to Appeal Negative Ruling by Judge

Employees at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory will file an emergency motion on Thursday to appeal a federal district court's decision that denies them the court's protection from excessively intrusive personal background investigations ordered by NASA for all JPL employees.

During the hearing in his Los Angeles courtroom on Monday, Judge Otis Wright said he was inclined to issue a limited temporary injunction before October 5 in the case of the 28 JPL employees who filed suit against Caltech and NASA over the detailed personal investigations associated with issuing new identification badges for access to the JPL facility. None of the 28 employees do any classified work.

Earlier Wednesday, however, Judge Wright changed his mind. Rather than issuing the temporary injunction he described in court Monday, he denied the employees' plea for court protection. A few hours later, attorneys for the JPL employees said they would file an emergency appeal of Wright's decision tomorrow to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Caltech has arbitrarily imposed an October 5 deadline for employees to complete a detailed personal questionnaire and to "voluntarily" sign a waiver permitting investigators to conduct open-ended probes into intimate personal background details, including sexual relationships. Employees who do not comply by will be locked out on October 27.

Hundreds of JPL employees have taken issue with the background checks. In addition to the 28 plaintiffs, more than 200 employees have signed an on-line statement stating that they completed the questionnaire under duress in order to keep their jobs. Many others are yet to comply with NASA's requirements. As pointed out by Caltech attorney Mark Holscher in court Monday, only 4100 out of 7500 JPL employees and contractors have initiated the required paperwork.

Robert M. Nelson, lead plaintiff in the case said, "We are obviously disappointed at Judge Wright's refusal to protect our privacy rights; however, our hopes have been raised by the appeal efforts of our attorneys." The JPL employees are represented by Dan Stormer, Virginia Keeny and Sanjukta Paul of the firm of Hadsell and Stormer, a prominent civil rights law firm in Pasadena CA.

Further information and all court documents are at the website hspd12jpl.org.

I should note that Judge Otis Wright is a Bush appointee, though as far as I can find his appointment met with no opposition and was supported by Senator Diane Feinstein.

Here's a link to the judge's ruling (PDF).

The Union of Concerned Scientists has filed a brief of Amicus Curiae (PDF) in support of the plaintiffs.

My wife's comment upon hearing of the ruling: "Oh, shit!"

For more information on what you can do to help protect the rights of federal employees and contractors (including grad students like my wife), go here.

Where my wife works (the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences) they have yet to receive notice that they have to comply with Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12...but they have been informed that the notice will come soon. My theory is that their security has been waiting for this court case to be decided. We'll see if she gets her notice soon. She has still not decided whether she will sign or risk losing access to her place of work.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |