Editing Jet Propulsion Laboratory (section)

==Controversies==

===Employee background check lawsuit===
{{Main|NASA v. Nelson}}
On February 25, 2005, [[Homeland Security]] Presidential Directive 12 was approved by the [[Secretary of Commerce]].<ref>[http://www.hspd12jpl.org/what_is.html HSPD-12 and JPL Rebadging Overview] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101230061526/http://www.hspd12jpl.org/what_is.html |date=2010-12-30 }}. HSPD12 JPL. Retrieved on 2013-07-21.</ref> This was followed by Federal Information Processing Standards 201 ([[FIPS 201]]), which specified how the federal government should implement personal identity verification. These specifications led to a need for rebadging to meet the updated requirements.

On August 30, 2007, a group of JPL employees filed suit in federal court against NASA, Caltech, and the Department of Commerce, claiming their constitutional rights were being violated by the new, overly invasive background investigations.<ref>[http://hspd12jpl.org Overview] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080103075529/http://hspd12jpl.org/ |date=2008-01-03 }}. HSPD12 JPL. Retrieved on 2013-07-21.</ref> 97% of JPL employees were classified at the low-risk level and would be subjected to the same clearance procedures as those obtaining moderate/high risk clearance. Under HSPD 12 and FIPS 201, investigators have the right to obtain any information on employees, which includes questioning acquaintances on the status of the employee's mental, emotional, and financial stability. Additionally, if employees depart JPL before the end of the two-year validity of the background check, no investigation ability is terminated; former employees can still be legally monitored.

Employees were told that if they did not sign an unlimited waiver of privacy,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hspd12jpl.org/files/sf85.pdf |title=Questionnaire for Non-Sensitive Positions |author=US Office of Personnel Management |access-date=August 26, 2010 |archive-date=January 18, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110118195900/http://hspd12jpl.org/files/sf85.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> they would be deemed to have "voluntarily resigned".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hspd12jpl.org/files/Declaration_of_Cozette_Hart.pdf |title=Declaration of Cozette Hart, JPL Human Resources Director |date=October 1, 2007 |access-date=August 26, 2010 |archive-date=July 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726160928/http://hspd12jpl.org/files/Declaration_of_Cozette_Hart.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] found the process violated the employees' privacy rights and issued a preliminary injunction.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://hspd12jpl.org/files/Order_01_11_08.pdf |title=Nelson v. NASA – Preliminary Injunction issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |date=Jan 11, 2008 |access-date=August 26, 2010 |archive-date=July 26, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726160949/http://hspd12jpl.org/files/Order_01_11_08.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> NASA appealed and the US Supreme Court granted [[certiorari]] on March 8, 2010. On January 19, 2011, the Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit decision, ruling that the background checks did not violate any constitutional privacy right that the employees may have had.<ref>{{cite court |opinion=No. 09-530 |court=U.S. |date=January 19, 2011 |litigants=National Aeronautics and Space Administration et al. v. Nelson et al. |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170810074442/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-530.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

===''Coppedge v Jet Propulsion Laboratory''===

On March 12, 2012, the [[Los Angeles Superior Court]] took opening statements on the case in which former JPL employee David Coppedge brought suit against the lab due to workplace discrimination and wrongful termination. In the suit, Coppedge alleges that he first lost his "team lead" status on JPL's ''[[Cassini-Huygens]]'' mission in 2009 and then was fired in 2011 because of his evangelical Christian beliefs and specifically his belief in [[intelligent design]]. Conversely, JPL, through the [[Caltech]] lawyers representing the laboratory, allege that Coppedge's termination was simply due to budget cuts and his demotion from team lead was because of harassment complaints and from on-going conflicts with his co-workers.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.foxnews.com/science/former-nasa-specialist-claims-he-was-fired-over-intelligent-design |work=Fox News |title=Former NASA specialist claims he was fired over intelligent design |date=March 11, 2012 |access-date=March 12, 2012 |archive-date=March 12, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312142641/http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/11/former-nasa-specialist-claims-was-fired-over-intelligent-design/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Superior Court Judge Ernest Hiroshige issued a final ruling in favor of JPL on January 16, 2013.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://articles.lacanadaonline.com/2013-01-17/news/tn-818-0117-judge-confirms-earlier-ruling-sides-with-jpl-in-intelligent-design-case_1_david-coppedge-james-zapp-jpl-attorneys |work=La Canada Valley Sun |title=Judge confirms earlier ruling, sides with JPL in 'intelligent design' case |date=January 17, 2013 |access-date=2013-01-21 |archive-date=2013-01-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130123010444/http://articles.lacanadaonline.com/2013-01-17/news/tn-818-0117-judge-confirms-earlier-ruling-sides-with-jpl-in-intelligent-design-case_1_david-coppedge-james-zapp-jpl-attorneys |url-status=dead}}</ref>