No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- METROPOLITAN INTERPRETERS & TRANSLATORS, INC., Petitioner, v. FRANCISCO BATES, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI --------------------------------- --------------------------------- RAUL L. MARTINEZ LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 250-1800 Facsimile: (213) 250-7900 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (“EPPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001 et seq., 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 Man- ual (“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 con- tractors who assist the government in conducting polygraph examinations of the contractor’s employees to determine whether their security clearance should be revoked. ii LIST OF PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (RULE 29.6) Petitioner Metropolitan Interpreters & Transla- tors, Inc. discloses it has no parent corporation, nor is there any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock. Respondents are Francisco Bates; Richard Gonzalez; Maria Nielsen; Eduardo Ruvalcaba; Fernando Medina; Melany Duran; Elizabeth Sanchez; Lilia Palomino; and Maribel Taylor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ................................ i LIST OF PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLO- SURE STATEMENT (RULE 29.6) ................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. v PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ....... 1 OPINIONS BELOW ............................................. 1 JURISDICTION ................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVI- SIONS INVOLVED........................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE.............................. 4 A. Metropolitan Provided Foreign-Language Translators Assisting The DEA In Inter- cepting And Translating Calls Involving Drug Cartels .............................................. 4 B. Metropolitan Cooperates With The DEA’s Demands That All Monitors Be Poly- graphed ...................................................... 5 C. Proceedings In The District Court ............ 6 D. Proceedings In The Ninth Circuit ............. 7 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ... 9 A. EPPA Conflicts With NISPOM Which Ex- pressly Requires Employees Of Govern- ment Contractors Accessing Sensitive Information To Submit To Polygraph Ex- aminations ................................................. 9 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page B. There Is Conflict Between The Circuits As To Whether Egan Applies To Government Contractors ................................................ 13 C. Alternatively, The Court Should Remand To The Ninth Circuit To Consider The Re- lationship Between EPPA And NISPOM, An Issue Which The Ninth Circuit’s Opin- ion Ignored ................................................. 21 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 22 APPENDIX United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Cir- cuit, Memorandum, dated August 3, 2018 ....... App. 1 United States District Court, Southern District of California, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions for Summary Judg- ment, dated October 24, 2014 .......................... App. 7 United States District Court, Southern District of California, Plaintiffs’ Judgment, dated June 30, 2015 ................................................. App. 28 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Stay Issuance of the Mandate, dated Sep- tember 28, 2018 .............................................. App. 31 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Order Denying Petitions for Rehear- ing and Rehearing En Banc, dated September 11, 2018 .......................................................... App. 32 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) .............. 7 Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) ............................. 20 Beattie v. Boeing Co., 43 F.3d 559 (10th Cir. 1994) .......................................................... 7, 14, 15, 16 Becerra v. Dalton, 94 F.3d 145 (4th Cir. 1996) ........... 14 Brazil v. United States Dep't of the Navy, 66 F.3d 193 (9th Cir. 1995) ............................................. 14, 20 Cejka v. Vectrus Sys. Corp., 291 F.Supp.3d 1231 (D. Colo. 2018) ......................................................... 11 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988) ............................................................... passim Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399 (9th Cir. 1990) ....... 14 Jacobs v. Experts, Inc., 212 F.Supp.3d 55 (D.D.C. 2016) ........................................................................ 10 Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993) ........................... 12 Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (3d Cir. 2008) .......... 18 Panessa v. Johns Hopkins Univ. Applied Physics Lab., 2015 Md. App. LEXIS 1140 (App. June 10, 2015) .................................................................. 10 Panoke v. United States Army Military Police Brigade, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 11551 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 19 Ryan v. Reno, 168 F.3d 520 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ............... 16 Stephenson v. Nassif, 160 F.Supp.3d 884 (E.D. Va. 2015) .................................................................. 10 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Toy v. Holder, 714 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 2013) ................ 10 United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) ................................................. 12 United States v. Hawkins, 249 F.3d 867 (9th Cir. 2001) ........................................................................ 14 Zeinali v. Raytheon Co., 636 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 8, 18 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const., Article II, § 2 ............................................. 7 STATUTORY AUTHORITIES 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................ 1 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001 et seq. ............................................... 6 29 U.S.C. § 2002 ............................................................ 2 29 U.S.C. §§ 2002(1), (2), and (3) .............................. 1, 6 29 U.S.C. §§ 2006(b)-(c) ............................................... 12 ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES Black’s Law Dictionary, 1201 (9th ed. 2009) .............. 21 Executive Order 12,829, § 201 ............................... 9, 10 NISPOM § 1-204 ......................................................... 11 NISPOM § 1-300 ......................................................... 11 NISPOM § 2-201(c) ............................................. 2, 8, 11 NISPOM § 6-105(c) ..................................................... 11 1 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Petitioner Metropolitan Interpreters & Transla- tors, Inc. respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- OPINIONS BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals (App. 1) is available at Bates v. Metro. Interpreters & Translators, Inc., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21597 (9th Cir. Aug. 3, 2018). The order of the court of appeals denying a re- hearing and rehearing en banc (App. 32) is unreported. The district court’s order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and finding that Metro- politan violated 29 U.S.C. §§ 2002(1), (2) and (3) (App. 7) is available at M.G. v. Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc., 62 F.Supp.3d 1189 (2014). The judg- ment on the verdict in favor of Plaintiffs is attached as App. 28. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on August 3, 2018, and a timely petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was denied on September 11, 2018. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). --------------------------------- --------------------------------- 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED The National Industrial Security Program Oper- ating Manual (“NISPOM”), promulgated under Execu- tive Order 12,829, states in pertinent part that federal agencies may require polygraphs of employees of fed- eral contractors to determine their eligibility for a se- curity clearance, as follows: c. Polygraph. Agencies with policies sanctioning the use of the polygraph