No. 18-751

Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators Inc. v. Francisco Bates, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-12-12
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: civil-rights due-process employee-polygraph-protection-act executive-branch-review executive-power federal-contractor federal-contractors judicial-review polygraph polygraph-examination security-clearance standing
Key Terms:
Arbitration ERISA
Latest Conference: 2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Employee Polygraph Protection Act supersedes the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual's authorization of federal agencies to require polygraphs of employees of federal contractors to determine their eligibility for a security clearance

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (“EPPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001 et seg., which prohibits private employers from directly or indirectly requiring, requesting, suggesting, or causing any employee to submit to a polygraph examination, supersedes the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (““NISPOM”), which explicitly authorizes federal agencies to require polygraphs of employees of federal contractors to determine their eligibility for a security clearance. 2. Whether the rule proscribing judicial review of Executive Branch security clearance determinations announced by this Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) extends to government contractors who assist the government in conducting polygraph examinations of the contractor’s employees to determine whether their security clearance should be revoked.

Docket Entries

2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-25
Reply of petitioner Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc. filed.
2019-01-11
Brief of respondents Francisco Bates, et al. in opposition filed.
2018-12-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 11, 2019)

Attorneys

Francisco Bates, et al.
Eugene G. IredaleIredale and Yoo, APC, Respondent
Eugene G. IredaleIredale and Yoo, APC, Respondent
Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc.
Raul Luis MartinezLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Petitioner
Raul Luis MartinezLewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Petitioner