Opinion Paper - Business Law Class - Essay Example

identification (all above optional – if you need them) Comments on NASA v. Nelson (U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals ruling on a Supreme Court Ninth Circuit decision) An essential guarantee provided to citizens of the United States in the right to privacy. This guarantee is a sign of personal freedom, and also ensures that our private lives are not open to public discussion and prejudice or judgment. It should also protect us from the government, so that it does not interfere with our personal decisions or choices. In the U.S.

Supreme Court Ninth Circuit case, heard in 2007, the Court ruled that a group of contract workers from the company, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), did not have to disclose certain information in the background checks NASA wanted to do. NASA would normally complete all these checks before employing someone on a full-time basis. This information related to the workers’ previous drug use and counseling, and questions about the workers’ honesty posed to the employee’s references. NASA could also force the employees to sign a release so that personal information could be researched from the employees’ schools, previous employers, and other sources (The HR website 2011).

The Supreme Court (Ninth Circuit) ruled that the contracted workers’ rights would be violated by such background checks, since previous drug use or counseling for drug use would not be relevant to their present contract with NASA, and that the opinions of previous employers could not be used to decide whether JPL could use these workers for the NASA contract. In both cases, the judgment felt that the workers’ constitutional rights would be violated by such checks. On Appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this previous decision (NASA v.

Nelson 2011), making it possible for NASA to do the same background checks on contracted workers as it does on full time employees. Their reasoning was that questions about drug use and treatment, and honesty and trustworthiness were similar to the background checks that most private employers use on potential workers (NASA v. Nelson 2011, p.2). As a government agency, NASA’s employees and contract workers should not be differentiated, according to the ruling: “. no meaningful distinctions in the duties of NASA’s civil-service and contractor employees .

contract employees do work that is critical to NASA’s mission . funded with a multibillion dollar taxpayer investment” (NASA v. Nelson 2011, p.2). The question of previous drug use was ruled on as follows: “. the drug-treatment inquiry is also a reasonable, employment-related inquiry . illegal-drug use is both a criminal and medical issue .” (NASA v. Nelson 2011, p.6). Although the contractors had not had any government checks done when JPL had contracted with NASA in 2007, the government had changed its procedures due to a need for homeland security (the Court quoted the following – “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD–12—Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors, PublicPapers of the President, George W.

Bush, Vol. 2, Aug. 27, p. 1765 (2007)” see: NASA v. Nelson 2011, p.3). Thus the decision was to check contract workers in the same way as full-time employees. The Privacy Act does protect citizens from disclosing anything which is not relevant to their employment (NASA v. Nelson 2011, p.9). But the Court ruled that the workers’ rights were not being violated by the questions about drug-use and honesty. The information the government has about these employees would not be used publicly, and the Court stated that “In light of the protection provided by the Privacy Act … The Government’s enquiries do not violate a constitutional right to informational privacy” (NASA v.

Nelson 2011, p.23). It is essential that employers know certain things about their employees: their qualifications; their work experience; their abilities and skills related to the job they are being interviewed for. In my opinion, employers should not need to know very much more about the personal life of someone they think can do the job. Perhaps, in sensitive government areas, more about the person who is being employed does need to be known. But if the potential worker has not been in trouble with the law, or been convicted of crimes, whether or not they used drugs should not be part of the reason they are to be employed.

The Constitution of the United States guarantees many personal freedoms, and one of these is the right to privacy. When the government itself does not honour that right, we should all rethink our vote in the next election. . References The Human Resources Website (2011) Supreme Court Rules Background Checks of NASA's Contractor Employees Legal available at http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Staffing-Training/Background-Checks/Supreme-Court-Rules-Background-Checks-of-NASAs-Con/?source=RSA&effort=4 and accessed on January 22, 2011 National Aeronautics and Space Administration et.al. v.

Nelson et.al. (2011) U.S.S.C. 09-530 [Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit] No. 09–530. Argued October 5, 2010—Decided January 19, 2011 available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/ and accessed January 21, 2011