solution

 Sabrina Polkey worked for Transtecs Corporation, a military contractor that operated a mailroom at a navel base. Polkey noticed opened, undelivered mail in a trash can at the front desk at the end of the day. Polkey reported the incident to her supervisor, Carl Kirtley, who then asked all of the employees to consent to a polygraph test. The employee suspected of tampering with the mail took his test first, and his results came back suggesting deception when he denied tampering with the mail. Kirtley then encouraged the other employees to take the polygraph test to clear their names. Polkey and the other employees expressed doubts about the accuracy of the polygraph and declined to take the test. Polkey was fired a week later for officially accepting deliveries through the back door, in violation of regulations. Polkey brought action against Transtecs, alleging a violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). Transtecs argued that it fell under two exceptions of the EPPA: first, it was a military contractor, so it fell under the national defense exception; second, it fell under the ongoing investigation exception. The district court granted summary judgment for Polkey, and Transtecs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. How do you think the appeals court ruled and why? Polkey v. Transtecs Corp., 404 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2005).