Mass. Gen. Laws » Part I Title XXI Chapter 149
Massachusetts General Laws

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B (2026)

Lie detector tests; use as condition of employment; penalty; civil action

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MAmalegislature.gov (official) JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Section 19B. (1) As used in this section the term ''lie detector test'' shall mean any test utilizing a polygraph or any other device, mechanism, instrument or written examination, which is operated, or the results of which are used or interpreted by an examiner for the purpose of purporting to assist in or enable the detection of deception, the verification of truthfulness, or the rendering of a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty of an individual.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any employer or his agent, with respect to any of his employees, or any person applying to him for employment, including any person applying for employment as a police officer, to subject such person to, or request such person to take a lie detector test within or without the commonwealth, or to discharge, not hire, demote or otherwise discriminate against such person for the assertion of rights arising hereunder. This section shall not apply to lie detector tests administered by law enforcement agencies as may be otherwise permitted in criminal investigations.

(a) The fact that such lie detector test was to be, or was, administered outside the commonwealth for employment within the commonwealth shall not be a valid defense to an action brought under the provisions of subsection (3) or (4).

(b) All applications for employment within the commonwealth shall contain the following notice which shall be in clearly legible print:

''It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer who violates this law shall be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability.''

(3) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars nor less than three hundred dollars. Second and subsequent violations of any provision of this section shall be punishable by a fine of not more than fifteen hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days, or both such fine and imprisonment.

In the case of a corporation, the responsible individual shall be the president, chief operating officer or any managerial or supervisory person who allows or condones such violation.

No waiver of the provisions of this section by an employee or prospective employee shall be a defense to either criminal prosecution or civil liability.

(4) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (2) may institute within three years of such violation and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf, or for himself and for other similarly situated, a civil action for injunctive relief and any damages thereby incurred, including treble damages for any loss of wages or other benefits. The total awarded damages shall equal or exceed a minimum of five hundred dollars for each such violation. A person so aggrieved and who prevails in such action shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorney fees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Local 346, Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 462 N.E.2d 96 (Mass. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Local 346, Int'l Bhd. of Police Officers v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 462 N.E.2d 96 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 15× “L. c. 150E does not require a city or town to negotiate with the union over the police department’s decision to use polygraph examinations in the investigation of criminal activity by police officers.”
Mulgrew v. City of Taunton, 574 N.E.2d 389 (Mass. 1991). · cites it 4× “In addition, the plaintiff sought damages against the city for its request that the plaintiff take a lie detector test allegedly in violation of G. L. c. 149, § 19B (1990 ed.), and for violating the plaintiff’s Federal and State constitutional rights.”
Cort v. Bristol-Myers Co., 431 N.E.2d 908 (Mass. 1982). · cites it 2× “G.L.c. 149, § 19B. It is an unlawful practice under G.”
Bellin v. Kelley, 755 N.E.2d 1274 (Mass. 2001). · cites it 4× “6, § 172, and that Kelley’s threat to fire him if he did not take the polygraph examination was in violation of G. L. c. 149, § 19B. As a matter of law, Beilin has failed to show that either statute was violated.”
Furtado v. Town of Plymouth, 27 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1475 (Mass. 2008). · cites it 20× “Furtado then brought this action in the Superior Court pursu *531 ant to G. L. c. 149, § 19B (4), 3 claiming that his rights under G.”
Bratt v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 467 N.E.2d 126 (Mass. 1984). “, G. L. c. 149, § 19B (use of lie detector tests by employers prohibited); G.”
Commonwealth v. a Juv., 313 N.E.2d 120 (Mass. 1974). · cites it 2× “255, which inserted in G.L.c. 149, § 19B, prohibiting an employer from requiring or subjecting "any employee to any lie detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment"; St.”
Mello v. Stop & Shop Companies, Inc., 524 N.E.2d 105 (Mass. 1988). “), providing that no employer shall penalize an employee for filing a complaint or giving notice in regard to occupational health and safety of employees engaged in using asbestos; G.”
Bellin v. Kelley, 724 N.E.2d 319 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 5× “The plaintiff brought suit, asserting claims against the company and Kelley for wrongful termination of employment, for violation of G. L. c. 149, § 19B(2) (set out in note 11, infra), for wrongfully subjecting him to a lie detector test, and for violation of the Massachusetts…”
Furtado v. Town of Plymouth, 867 N.E.2d 801 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). · cites it 6× “Furtado, claims that his rights under G. L. c. 149, § 19B(2), were infringed when the town of Plymouth (town) police department (as his employer) ordered him to submit to a lie detector test in the course of an investigation to determine if he should be disciplined or terminated.”
Baker v. City of Lawrence, 409 N.E.2d 710 (Mass. 1979). “” The plaintiff officers contended in the action that the request to them to submit to a polygraph test, with the threat of disciplinary action if they refused, offended against G. L. c. 149, § 19B, and was otherwise prohibited.”
United States v. DeBetham, 348 F. Supp. 1377 (S.D. Cal. 1972). “1969) ; Mass.Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 149, § 19B (Supp.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B(1) — 1 case
Jeffrey Forbes, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Mobility Servs. LLC (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B(2) — 3 cases
Bellin v. Kelley, 724 N.E.2d 319 (Mass. App. Ct. 2000). “The plaintiff brought suit, asserting claims against the company and Kelley for wrongful termination of employment, for violation of G. L. c. 149, § 19B(2) (set out in note 11, infra), for wrongfully subjecting him to a lie detector test, and for violation of the Massachusetts…”
Furtado v. Town of Plymouth, 867 N.E.2d 801 (Mass. App. Ct. 2007). “Furtado, claims that his rights under G. L. c. 149, § 19B(2), were infringed when the town of Plymouth (town) police department (as his employer) ordered him to submit to a lie detector test in the course of an investigation to determine if he should be disciplined or terminated.”
Jeffrey Forbes, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Mobility Servs. LLC (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B(2)(b) — 2 cases
Jeffrey Forbes, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Mobility Servs. LLC (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026).
Jeffrey Forbes & Kimberly Michaud, individually & on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macy’s, Inc. (D. Mass. 2026).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B(3) — 1 case
Jeffrey Forbes, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Mobility Servs. LLC (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026).
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B(4) — 2 cases
Jeffrey Forbes, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. At&t Mobility Servs. LLC (Mass. Super. Ct. 2026).
Baker v. CVS Health Corp. (D. Mass. 2024).
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.