§
Subdivision 1.Prohibition, penalty.
No employer or agent thereof shall directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee. No person shall sell to or interpret for an employer or the employer's agent a test that the person knows has been solicited or required by an employer or agent to test the honesty of an employee or prospective employee. An employer or agent or any person knowingly selling, administering, or interpreting tests in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. If an employee requests a polygraph test any employer or agent administering the test shall inform the employee that taking the test is voluntary.
§
Subd. 2.Investigations.
The Department of Labor and Industry shall investigate suspected violations of this section. The department may refer any evidence available concerning violations of this section to the county attorney of the appropriate county, who may with or without such reference, institute the appropriate criminal proceedings under this section.
§
Subd. 3.Injunctive relief.
In addition to the penalties provided by law for violation of this section, specifically and generally, whether or not injunctive relief is otherwise provided by law, the courts of this state are vested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this section and to require the payment of civil penalties. Whenever it shall appear to the satisfaction of the attorney general that this section has been or is being violated, the attorney general shall be entitled, on behalf of the state, to sue for and have injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction against any such violation or threatened violation without abridging other penalties provided by law.
§
Subd. 4.Individual remedies.
In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of this section may bring a civil action to recover any and all damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney's fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court. The court may, as appropriate, enter a consent judgment or decree without a finding of illegality.
Notes of Decisions
State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. 1981).
· cites it 52× “, and Foresight Security Services of Minnesota for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and civil penalties under Minn.Stat. § 181.75, subd. 3 (1980). 8 Foresight Security conducts background investigations, undercover investigations, and polygraph examinations of employees or…”
Bucko v. First Minnesota Sav. Bank, 471 N.W.2d 95 (Minn. 1991).
· cites it 50× “This appeal relates to awards of punitive damages and attorney fees for violations of Minn.Stat. § 181.75, prohibiting employee polygraph testing.”
Collins v. Minnesota Sch. of Bus., Inc., 655 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Minn. Stat. § 181.75 , subd. 4 (2002). First Minnesota made a Rule 68 offer of judgment of $5,000 to each plaintiff.”
Lee v. Metro. Airport Comm'n, 428 N.W.2d 815 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “Violation of Minn.Stat. § 181.75 Appellant claims that respondent MAC violated Minn.”
Kamrath v. Suburban Nat'l Bank, 363 N.W.2d 108 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 13× “Minn.Stat. § 181.75, subd. 1 (1984) states that: No employer or agent thereof shall by directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee.”
Jeffers v. Convoy Co., 636 F. Supp. 1337 (D. Minnesota 1986).
· cites it 11× “§§ 181.75 and 181.76, breach of contract, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and misrepresentation, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
Burt v. Rackner, Inc., 902 N.W.2d 448 (Minn. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 181.75 , subd. 1. The statute also broadly provides that “any person injured by a violation of this section may bring , a civil action to recover any and all damages recoverable at law.”
Onyiah v. St. Cloud State Univ., 655 F. Supp. 2d 948 (D. Minnesota 2009).
· cites it 4× “at 111 ; see also, Minnesota Statutes Section 181.75, Subdivision 1 (“No employer or agent thereof shall directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee.”
DeRoche v. All Am. Bottling Corp., 38 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (D. Minnesota 1998).
· cites it 6× “’’ Minnesota Statutes Section 181.75, Subdivision 4. In addition, as we note in the text of this Order, Sections 181.”
Bucko v. First Minnesota Sav. Bank, F.S.B., 452 N.W.2d 244 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 14× “In an action brought under Minn.Stat. § 181.75, subd. 4 (1988) (authorizing a private cause of action against an employer who requests a polygraph test), First Minnesota Savings Bank (bank) appeals from a judgment entered following a jury verdict.”
McDaniel v. United Hardware Distrib. Co., 469 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 1991).
· cites it 4× “1988), we analyzed whether Minn.Stat. § 181.75, subd. 4 (1990), which creates a private remedy for the employee if the employer solicits or requires a polygraph test as a condition of employment, constitutes a penalty.”
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.