NCJ Number
158543
Journal
Employment Testing Law and Policy Reporter Volume: 4 Issue: 6 Dated: (June 1995) Pages: 87-89
Date Published
1995
Length
3 pages
Annotation
Two cases, decided in early 1995 in Illinois and Ohio, have further clarified polygraph examiners' and employers' exposure to liability under the Federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) of 1988.
Abstract
The first case, James v. Professionals' Detective Agency, Inc., focused on the circumstances under which a polygraph examiner is an "employer" within the meaning of the EPPA. James sued both the detective agency and the polygraph examiner, alleging a number of violations of the EPPA in the administering of a polygraph exam in the context of his work for the detective agency. The polygraph examiner (Craven) moved to dismiss the claims against him on the grounds that he was not an "employer" as that term is used in the EPPA. The court applied the "economic reality" test approved in previous cases. Under the economic reality test, courts have asked whether the polygraph examiner exerted some degree of control over the employer's compliance with the EPPA. The judge in this case concluded that the plaintiff (James) might be able to show that Craven did more than simply administer the examination and in fact exerted some control over the agency's compliance with the EPPA; the motion to dismiss the claims against Craven was denied. In the second case, Lyle v. Mercy Hospital Anderson, the issue to be decided by the court was whether the hospital had requested a polygraph examination and, if so, whether it had suffered an economic loss that would support a request for a polygraph examination under the EPPA's exemption for ongoing investigations. In denying the hospital's motion for a summary judgment, the court reasoned that the hospital did not provide the plaintiff with the requisite procedural safeguards, such as a statement that contained an explanation of the incident under investigation and the basis for testing the employee. 6 notes