Gregory Greer v. General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

I. Is the language of 48 CFR 7.503(d)(13), which is inconsistent with relevant Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement provisions (DFARS) concerning contractor-employee supervision by governmental employees, vague and untenable juxtaposed with those on point DFARS? II. Is an inherently governmental function of super v ising a United States Depar tment of Defense (DOD) employee by a superior government functionary distinct from the not inherently governmental function of supervising a DOD contractor-employee by such government functionary? III. As Executive Order 12829 (National Industrial Security Program) [NISP] has been codified in the Federal Register and has the force of law, is a private right of action against the contractor- employer for concealment and misrepresentation of the correct security clearance level maintainable? IV. Does the lack of debr ief ing when a DOD contractor-employee is terminated from his or her position violate NISP and create a private right of action to vindicate injuries from such omission?