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

29 U.S.C. § 2002

Prohibitions on lie detector use

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in sections 2006 and 2007 of this title, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce—(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee;(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against—(A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test, or(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test; or(4) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against, any employee or prospective employee because—(A) such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter,(B) such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or(C) of the exercise by such employee or prospective employee, on behalf of such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this chapter.(Pub. L. 100–347, § 3, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 646.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 6 months after June 27, 1988, except that rules and regulations shall be issued not later than 90 days after June 27, 1988, see section 11 of Pub. L. 100–347, set out as a note under section 2001 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Mennen v. Easter Stores, 951 F. Supp. 838 (N.D. Iowa 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mennen v. Easter Stores, 951 F. Supp. 838 (N.D. Iowa 1997). · cites it 13× “A Mennen’s Federal Polygraph Claim Mennen asserts that he has established Easter’s violation of the EPPA, 29 U.S.C. § 2002 . He argues that Easter violated sections (1), (2), and (3) of section 2002 of the EPPA, in that it caused him to take a lie detector test, it used the…”
Gary Lee Watson v. Drummond Co., Inc., 436 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 10× “First, did the Company engage in an activity described in 29 U.S.C. § 2002 ? Second, if so, was its conduct nonetheless permitted under the “ongoing investigation” exemption of 29 U.”
Robin Orr v. Bank of Am., Nt & Sa, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). “See 29 U.S.C. §§ 2002 , 2008; Saari v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co.”
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 3× “require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test; (3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against— (A) any…”
Laney v. Getty, 19 F. Supp. 3d 737 (E.D. Ky. 2014). · cites it 10× “Because Laney would have been terminated regardless of whether he agreed or refused to submit to the polygraph, he cannot prevail under one section of the act, 29 U.S.C. § 2002 (3). However, the undisputed facts show that the defendants’ actions likely violate another provision…”
Worden v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., 549 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “First, Worden asserted SunTrust “used, accepted, referred to, obtained, learned of, and/or inquired concerning the results of the polygraph examination,” in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 2002 (2) (the “§ 2002(2) claim”).”
United States Dep't of Labor Robert B. Reich, Sec'y of U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Rapid Robert's Inc. Robert E. Wilson, Jr.., 130 F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “Compare 29 U.S.C. §§ 2002 (3)(A), 2002(4)(C), with 29 C.”
Rubin v. Tourneau, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. § 2002 (1). EPPA also prohibits any adverse action against an employee or applicant who fails or refuses to submit to a polygraph examination, or who files a complaint, testifies or exercises any right granted under EPPA.”
Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc., 288 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2002). “29 U.S.C. § 2002 (1). Employers are also prohibited from discharging any employee who fails or refuses to take a polygraph examination.”
United States v. Julio Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989). “In order to fool the control question test, the subject must enhance his physiological reactions to neutral questions, and/or decrease his physiological reactions to relevant questions.”
Sabrina Polkey v. Transtecs Corp., 404 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “PER CURIAM: Transtecs Corporation appeals the district court’s award of summary judgment to Sabrina Polkey on her claim that Tran-stecs requested her to take a polygraph exam, in violation of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (“EPPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2002 (1) (2005). Transtecs…”
Accurso v. Infra-Red Servs., Inc., 169 F. Supp. 3d 612 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “The Defendants’ liability under 29 U.S.C. § 2002 is predicated in part on establishing that Mr.”
Show all 48 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.