Notes of Decisions
Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994).
· cites it 2× “(a) ["No employer shall demand or require any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee to submit to or take a polygraph, lie detector or similar test or examination as a condition of employment or continued employment"]; 29 U.S.C. § 2001 [regulating…”
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe, 903 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 1995).
· cites it 2× “2d at 276-77 , and that the Federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq., prohibited employer use of polygraphs except under limited circumstances and gave adequate statutory protection.”
Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Moreover, the court noted that the Federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2001 , which creates a private cause of action for certain violations of the Act, greatly diminished the need to recognize a new common-law tort remedy for negligently conducted…”
Accurso v. Infra-Red Servs., Inc., 169 F. Supp. 3d 612 (E.D. Pa. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Strein 1 , alleging violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), 29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq., breach of contract, intentional interference with contract, violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 Pa.”
Mennen v. Easter Stores, 951 F. Supp. 838 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
· cites it 4× “, in order to determine whether the defendant employer has violated the Act by using the plaintiffs polygraph examination results, demoting him on the basis of those results, and ultimately constructively discharging him.”
Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc., 288 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2002).
“(collective *724 ly “Allied”) on Calbillo’s negligence and Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA), 29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq., claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.”
United States v. Julio Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989).
“*1538 646 (codified at 29 U.S.C.A. § 2001 (West Supp.1989)). 2 The polygraph device records the subject’s physiological activities (e.”
Rubin v. Tourneau, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2001 (2). By adopting this provision Congress gave no restrictive definition of employer but instead noted only that whatever definition courts adopt, they should include as employers those who act in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or…”
Fallin v. Mindis Metals, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 834 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
· cites it 3× “”), 29 U.S.C. § 2001 et seq. Count Two alleges that Defendants Alpha and Lane are hable to Plaintiff for their negligent performance of the polygraph examinations which resulted in the loss of Plaintiff Fallin’s job.”
Farrington v. Sysco Food Servs., Inc., 865 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993).
“Because Farrington raises the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C.A. § 2001 (West Supp.1993), (EPPA), for the first time on appeal, he has waived this argument.”
Worden v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 549 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008).
“(“SunTrust”), alleging that SunTrust violated two provisions of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (“EPPA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001 to 2009 (2000). The district court granted Sun-Trust’s motion for summary judgment as to both claims.”
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.