(a) For the purposes of this section “polygraph” means any mechanical or electrical instrument or device of any type used or allegedly used to examine, test or question individuals for the purpose of determining truthfulness.
(b) (1) No person, firm, corporation, association or the state or any political subdivision thereof shall request or require any prospective employee or any employee to submit to, or take, a polygraph examination as a condition of obtaining employment or of continuing employment with such employer or dismiss or discipline in any manner an employee for failing, refusing or declining to submit to or take a polygraph examination. (2) No employment agency, as defined in section 31-129, and no agent for an employer shall require any person to submit to, or take, a polygraph examination for any purposes whatsoever.
(c) Any person, firm, corporation or association which violates any provision of this section shall be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than one thousand dollars for each violation.
(d) The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons to be employed (1) by the state or any local government or any political subdivision thereof in any police department except for civilian employees within the department or (2) by the Department of Correction, but shall apply with respect to obtaining and maintaining employment of other persons by the state or any local government or political subdivision thereof.
(1967, P.A. 488, S. 1-4; P.A. 75-631; P.A. 98-126, S. 2.)
History: P.A. 75-631 made provisions applicable to the state and its political subdivisions; P.A. 98-126 amended Subsec. (d) to make provisions of section inapplicable to persons to be employed by the Department of Correction.
Notes of Decisions
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 738 A.2d 623 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 4× “loyee for seeking information about toxic substances used at the workplace; General Statutes § 31-48b, which provides criminal sanctions against a private employer who records or monitors activities of employees in areas designed for the personal health or comfort of the…”
Spears v. Garcia, 818 A.2d 37 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2d 701 (1989) (noting legislature’s waiver of state’s immunity under General Statutes § 31-51g for employer’s discharge of employee exercising constitutional rights).”
Barlow v. Connecticut, 319 F. Supp. 2d 250 (D. Conn. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Conn. Gen.Stat. § 31-51g, provides in pertinent part that: any employer, including the state and any instrumentality or political subdivision thereof, who subjects any employee to discipline or discharge on account of the exercise by such employee of rights guaranteed by the…”
Cotto v. United Tech. Corp., 711 A.2d 1180 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998).
· cites it 2× “loyee for seeking information about toxic substances used at the workplace; General Statutes § 31-48b, which provides criminal sanctions against a private employer who records or monitors activities of employees in areas designed for the personal health or comfort of the…”
Lavette v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., 213 Conn. App. 463 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “’’ The trial court presumed that the plaintiff’s multiple references in the fourth amended complaint to General Statutes § 31-51g constituted a typographi- cal error.”
State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 1981).
“2 (West 1971) (prohibits employer demanding or requiring polygraph, lie detector, or similar test as a condition of employment or continued employment; government employment exempted); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 31-51g (1981) (prohibits requesting or requiring polygraph examination as a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.