For some jobs, even private sector jobs, not getting (or maintaining) a government issued security clearance is a fundamental job requirement. There are numerous court decisions upholding terminations from employment because the government revoked the clearance of the employee. There is even a special provision in Title VII which states that it is not illegal to fire (or refuse to hire) an employee who cannot possess a clearance if the position requires the holding of a clearance. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(g).
A decision issued today (Zeinali v. Raytheon Co.) by the Ninth Circuit (which governs federal laws in the west coast states), serves as a reminder that even "sure things" have a catch, that being treating employees consistently. The court held that it could not review the government's clearance decision (in this case the government refused to grant a clearance). It refused to go so far as to refuse to review the employer's decision to fire the employee because the employee failed to obtain a clearance. There was no doubt, the decision stated, the employee was told the position required a clearance.
What went wrong was that there were two other employees (in jobs similar to that held by the plaintiff) who had security clearances revoked but the employer had not terminated either employee. So, for all the bluster and worry about whether or not courts may review decisions based upon the loss of a security clearance, the decision came down to whether or not the employer had treated the employee worse that it treated other, similarly situated, employees.
No comments:
Post a Comment