10 years after its inception, DIA's Insider Threat Program is thoroughly embarrassed, as one of its own is arrested by the FBI for intentionally mishandling classified material.

They need to stop wasting resources on their beloved polygraph program and focus on conducting proper background checks.

Name correction:   
*Nathan Vilas Laatsch

John M, you lose again.  Another victory in the fight against insider threats.

Never.  In my almost 40-year polygraph career with 3 different DOD polygraph agencies, I have never seen or heard of it happening.  We have had individuals with a legitimate medical reason for not being suitable for testing, and they are simply not granted the access, removed from access (as John Morter was) or not hired.  It is simply a myth that a polygraph requirement can be "waived".

quickfix wrote on Jul 25^th, 2025 at 3:01pm:

Has anyone herd from John M. for his take?  Would like to hear his thoughts.

Today, my petition for a writ of certiorari was docketed in the US Supreme Court. #25-737.

I’m representing myself, and I’m hoping that anyone with relevant expertise — psychologists, researchers, clinicians, attorneys, or scholars — might consider whether these issues warrant independent amicus (friend-of-the-court) support. Any such involvement would be entirely voluntary and independent, and focused on the broader legal and scientific issues rather than my personal situation.

The Questions Presented are:

1.      Whether a federal agency may, consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and EEOC regulations, redefine a security screening requirement—such as a counterintelligence scope polygraph (CSP) examination—as an “essential job function,” thereby eliminating the duty to provide reasonable accommodation to employees whose documented medical conditions render them unsuitable for such testing.

2.      Whether mandatory Department of Defense regulations, including DoDI 5210.91—which (a) prohibit adverse administrative action based solely on an unresolved polygraph result and (b) require medical deferral or exemption for individuals who are psychologically or medically unsuited for testing—are judicially enforceable under the Rehabilitation Act, or instead may be disregarded under a theory of unreviewable “security discretion.” (App. F)

3.      Whether courts may extend Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), beyond clearance adjudications to cover ordinary personnel and medical accommodation decisions, effectively placing federal employees’ statutory rights outside judicial review even when no security clearance has been suspended, revoked, or unfavorably adjudicated.

4.      Whether an agency that categorically refuses to consider disability-based accommodations or to engage in the interactive process required by 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(o)(3) may nevertheless be deemed to have acted lawfully under the Rehabilitation Act when its justifications are shifting, medically unsupported, and contrary to its own binding regulations.
 
If you're interested, or would like more information, I am also available on Signal at sammorter.11

I posed the four questions presented in my case to Grok, and this is what it came up with -

1. Whether a federal agency may, consistent with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and EEOC regulations, redefine a security screening requirement—such as a counterintelligence scope polygraph (CSP) examination—as an “essential job function,” thereby eliminating the duty to provide reasonable accommodation to employees whose documented medical conditions render them unsuitable for such testing.

A federal agency generally may not redefine a security screening requirement—such as a counterintelligence scope polygraph (CSP) examination—as an "essential job function" solely to eliminate the duty to provide reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 501) and EEOC regulations.

Key Principles Under the Rehabilitation Act and EEOC Guidance

The Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities and requires them to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause undue hardship. A "qualified individual" is one who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m), incorporated into federal sector rules).

Essential functions are the fundamental duties of the position, not marginal ones. Factors for determining them include:
• The employer's judgment
• Written job descriptions
• Time spent performing the function
• Consequences of not requiring it

Courts and the EEOC defer to employer judgments on essential functions but scrutinize attempts to manipulate them to avoid accommodation obligations.

Application to Security Requirements Like CSP

Positions requiring access to classified information (e.g., in intelligence or defense agencies) often mandate security clearances, which include polygraph screenings like CSP for counterintelligence purposes. Holding or obtaining such a clearance is frequently considered a qualification standard or essential eligibility requirement for the role.

However:

• Agencies cannot arbitrarily relabel a screening requirement as "essential" to bypass the interactive process for reasonable accommodation.
• If a documented medical condition (e.g., certain anxiety disorders, heart conditions, or other impairments that affect physiological responses) renders an employee unsuitable for polygraph testing, the agency must explore accommodations—such as alternative screening methods, reassignment to a non-sensitive position, or waivers—if they would enable the individual to perform the job's core duties without undue hardship.

EEOC guidance emphasizes that medical examinations (including those that may interact with disabilities) must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Polygraphs are not classified as medical examinations under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act, but if a disability prevents successful completion, the agency cannot simply declare the test itself "essential" without justification tied to the position's fundamental duties.

Relevant Considerations and Limitations

•      National security exception: In roles involving sensitive classified information, courts often uphold denial of accommodations that compromise security (e.g., waiving a clearance requirement could pose a direct threat or fundamental alteration). Undue hardship in the federal context can include risks to national security.
•      No direct precedent on CSP: There are no widely reported court cases specifically addressing CSP polygraphs and reasonable accommodation claims under the Rehabilitation Act. Analogous cases involving security clearances (e.g., Kaplan v. Northrop Grumman Corp. or EEOC v. Exxon) treat clearance as an essential requirement where core job duties involve protected information.
•      Employee options: If denied accommodation, an employee may challenge the designation via the EEOC federal sector process, arguing the agency failed to engage interactively or that the polygraph is not truly essential.

In summary, while agencies have broad discretion to define essential functions—especially for security-sensitive roles—they cannot redefine requirements merely to evade accommodation duties. The determination must be based on legitimate job needs, and the interactive process is required. For specific situations, consult an attorney or file with the agency's EEO office/EEOC, as outcomes depend on case facts, job description, and agency mission.