Agencies can conduct background checks on contract employees, court rules

Court rejects argument brought by contract employees at NASA lab

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously this week that the federal government is authorized to perform background checks on persons who work under federal contracts.

Twenty-eight contract employees at a NASA facility in California brought the case (NASA v. Nelson), claiming that two parts of a standard employment background investigation violated their privacy rights.


Related story:

OPM not doing enough to protect privacy on background checks, GAO says


The scientists and engineers specifically objected to a section of the questionnaire that asked them about treatment or counseling for recent illegal drug use and also opposed certain open-ended questions on a form sent to their references.

However, the court called the challenged questions “reasonable, employment-related inquiries that further the government’s interests in managing its internal operations.”

The ruling also suggested that the government will not treat contract employees differently than federal employees when it comes to checking their backgrounds.

“Respondents argue that, because they are contract employees and not civil servants, the government’s broad authority in managing its affairs should apply with diminished force,” the court wrote Jan. 19. “But the government’s interest as a ‘proprietor’ in managing its operations … does turn on such formalities.” 

The employees were not subject to government background checks at the time they were hired at the facility, but that changed following a 9/11 Commission recommendation that prompted the president to order uniform identification standards for federal and contract employees.

The contract employees at the NASA facility brought the suit two months before the October 2007 deadline to submit the newly ordered background checks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granted the employees an injunction, deciding that the questions about drug treatment and counseling furthered “no legitimate interest” and were thus likely to be held unconstitutional.

The lower court also ruled that the open-ended questions were not narrowly tailored to meet the government’s interest in verifying contractors’ identities and ensuring security of the government laboratory.

But, the Supreme Court noted that the government has been conducting basic employment background checks since the 1950s and added that private sector employers also conduct such checks.

“Reasonable investigations of applicants and employees aid the government in ensuring the security of its facilities and employing a competent, reliable workforce,” the high court stated. 

 

About the Author

Alyah Khan is a staff writer covering IT policy.

The Fed 100

Save the date for 28th annual Federal 100 Awards Gala.

Featured

  • Social network, census

    5 predictions for federal IT in 2017

    As the Trump team takes control, here's what the tech community can expect.

  • Rep. Gerald Connolly

    Connolly warns on workforce changes

    The ranking member of the House Oversight Committee's Government Operations panel warns that Congress will look to legislate changes to the federal workforce.

  • President Donald J. Trump delivers his inaugural address

    How will Trump lead on tech?

    The businessman turned reality star turned U.S. president clearly has mastered Twitter, but what will his administration mean for broader technology issues?

  • Login.gov moving ahead

    The bid to establish a single login for accessing government services is moving again on the last full day of the Obama presidency.

  • Shutterstock image (by Jirsak): customer care, relationship management, and leadership concept.

    Obama wraps up security clearance reforms

    In a last-minute executive order, President Obama institutes structural reforms to the security clearance process designed to create a more unified system across government agencies.

  • Shutterstock image: breached lock.

    What cyber can learn from counterterrorism

    The U.S. has to look at its experience in developing post-9/11 counterterrorism policies to inform efforts to formalize cybersecurity policies, says a senior official.

Reader comments

Wed, Jan 26, 2011

It seems to me that the Supreme Court's decision is that contractors are subject to the same routine background investigations as fed employees regardless of the contractor's work, i.e., classified vs. unclassified.

Mon, Jan 24, 2011

I thought the court case focused on the fact that the contractors were working on unclassified projects. The plantiffs felt that the SF85 background form was too invasive since the work was not classified, did not impact national security, and the facility (Jet Propulsion Lab) is operated by CalTech as a (mostly) open research facility. Thus, the FCW summary seems a bit light on factual details.

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

More from 1105 Public Sector Media Group