The New York Times today heard the beginning arguments on the stipulation of employment, as set up in 2005 by the Bush administration, requiring background checks on government contractors. At issue is if the background checks "as a condition of employment" violated the plaintiffs constitutional right to privacy.
In 1977, two similar cases where heard, but the results were ambiguous.
Acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal argued for the government in the case. Mr. Katyal stated that when the government is hiring, it should be able to "ask about potentially relevant matters just as private employers do" and "may not object to the mere collection of information where its public dissemination is tightly controlled."
In response to Mr. Katyal's points, Justice Scalia responded that it was not the Supreme Court whom should make this decision. That decision, for Justice Scalia, was best left for Congress.
Justice Ginsberg felt that the only at question in front of the court "concerned only inquiries about treatment for drug use in the past year and ones seeking adverse information from the employee’s landlords and other references." Such inquiries were blocked in 2008 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Dan Stormer, to have failed to provide a means "to distinguish permissible questions from others" for the court arguing instead that most had worked for the government 20-30 years and were "low- or no-risk employees".
Though I feel strongly in a right to privacy, in this case, the government should have the same right as private employers possess to ask question from applicants about their background. The answers to such questions are informative to the manner in which an applicant will perform while on the job. Also, if the government contract job is one of national importance, national security, the back ground check is an obvious necessity. The public good is at risk if the background of an applicant is left shrouded in mystery.
No comments:
Post a Comment