This might be more suited for General Questions since it has little to do with the subject of the column in question, but I’ve had threads moved here before due to a link to a column, so I’ll start out here.
How far does national security stretch in a matter like this? Surely a worker injured at a secret facility has the same protection as a worker injured at a public facility? In short, what does “dismissed on national-security grounds” mean here?
It means that the government convinced the trial judge that if the case were to go to trial, it could damage national security. The standard of proof for that kind of argument is not trivial, and it doesn’t happen often. But I’m no law-talkin’ guy so I can’t give you the specifics.
Yes, generally speaking, workplace-safety laws apply even in places like Groom Lake, CIA HQ or NSA HQ. But enforcing them can be difficult, and litigation can be cumbersome.
Although a judge in a case involving official secrets can review the classified information in camera (in chambers) to prevent public disclosure, the government will sometimes not want to even risk that limited level of disclosure and will dismiss the case if prosecutors decide it just isn’t worth it. The U.S. Attorney or brass from the U.S. Justice Department have to make such evaluations in cases involving Federal employees in hush-hush jobs or, as in the case of the Gitmo detainees, where disclosure might reveal “sources and methods” of intelligence-gathering, for instance.