U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 22— EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION

29 U.S.C. § 2001

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter:(1) Commerce

The term “commerce” has the meaning provided by section 203(b) of this title.

(2) Employer

The term “employer” includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee.

(3) Lie detector

The term “lie detector” includes a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechanical or electrical) that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.

(4) PolygraphThe term “polygraph” means an instrument that—(A) records continuously, visually, permanently, and simultaneously changes in cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal patterns as minimum instrumentation standards; and(B) is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.(5) Secretary

The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Labor.

(Pub. L. 100–347, § 2, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 646.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 100–347, § 11, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 653, provided that:“(a)In General.—Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act [enacting this chapter] shall become effective 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act [June 27, 1988].“(b)Regulations.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall issue such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this Act.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 100–347, § 1, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 646, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Hill v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assn., 865 P.2d 633 (Cal. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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.”
Darryl N. Veazey v. Commc'ns & Cable of Chicago, Inc., D/B/A Tci Commc'ns, Inc., Chicago Cable Tv, Tci Chicago or Tci-Chicago Cable, 194 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2001 (3) (1999) (emphasis added).”
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. 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.”
Show all 62 citing cases →
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.