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

29 U.S.C. § 2005

Enforcement provisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Civil penalties(1) In general

Subject to paragraph (2), any employer who violates any provision of this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $10,000.

(2) Determination of amount

In determining the amount of any penalty under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall take into account the previous record of the person in terms of compliance with this chapter and the gravity of the violation.

(3) Collection

Any civil penalty assessed under this subsection shall be collected in the same manner as is required by subsections (b) through (e) of section 1853 of this title with respect to civil penalties assessed under subsection (a) of such section.

(b) Injunctive actions by Secretary

The Secretary may bring an action under this section to restrain violations of this chapter. The Solicitor of Labor may appear for and represent the Secretary in any litigation brought under this chapter. In any action brought under this section, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to issue temporary or permanent restraining orders and injunctions to require compliance with this chapter, including such legal or equitable relief incident thereto as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.

(c) Private civil actions(1) Liability

An employer who violates this chapter shall be liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by such violation. Such employer shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate, including, but not limited to, employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.

(2) Court

An action to recover the liability prescribed in paragraph (1) may be maintained against the employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by an employee or prospective employee for or on behalf of such employee, prospective employee, and other employees or prospective employees similarly situated. No such action may be commenced more than 3 years after the date of the alleged violation.

(3) Costs

The court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party (other than the United States) reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees.

(d) Waiver of rights prohibited

The rights and procedures provided by this chapter may not be waived by contract or otherwise, unless such waiver is part of a written settlement agreed to and signed by the parties to the pending action or complaint under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 100–347, § 6, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 647.)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 27 cases, 1990–2018 · leading case: Rubin v. Tourneau, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rubin v. Tourneau, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 247 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). · cites it 6× “29 U.S.C. §§ 2005 (a), 2005(b). The private enforcement mechanism—the basis of this suit—is an explicit right of action in favor of employees against “[a]n employer who violates [EPPA] .”
Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 521 (b) (violations of DOT regulations punishable by DOT fines, loss of insurance, or levy of an unsatisfactory safety rating).”
Perodeau v. City of Hartford, 18 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 848 (Conn. 2002). “Iowa 1997) (awarding damages for emotional distress claim where employer violated Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2005 [c] [1]); Hernandez v. McDonald’s Corp.”
Mennen v. Easter Stores, 951 F. Supp. 838 (N.D. Iowa 1997). · cites it 5× “29 U.S.C. § 2005 (c)(1). Mennen claims that compensatory damages are the legal damages normally available by statute and for all federal civil rights and employment-regulated statutes.”
Howard E. Saari v. Smith Barney, Harris Upham & Co., Inc., 968 F.2d 877 (9th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2005 (c). The available relief is identical to that available to the Secretary by injunctive action under Section 2005(b).”
Calbillo v. Cavender Oldsmobile, Inc., 288 F.3d 721 (5th Cir. 2002). “in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee or prospective employee,” and, therefore, is not subject to suit under 29 U.S.C. § 2005 (c)(1). When examining the degree of control necessary to treat a polygraph examiner as an employer for purposes of the EPPA,…”
In Re Confidential Investigative Consultants, Inc., 178 B.R. 739 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995). · cites it 3× “29 U.S.C. § 2005 (c)(2). CIC terminated Jones’s employment on September 21,1990.”
Hall v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 616 (NY 1990). “Violations of the statutory prohibition may not be waived and are punishable by civil penalties, as well as injunctions and private actions for damages, which may be commenced in either Federal or State court ( 29 USC § 2005 ). In situations such as that presented in this case,…”
Fallin v. Mindis Metals, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 834 (N.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 2005 (c)(1). The E.P.P.A creates liability against the employer and not against other entities.”
Cashman v. Dolce Int'l/Hartford, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 73 (D. Conn. 2004). “damages”); the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2005 (b) (“The Secretary may bring an action under this section to restrain violations of this chapter.”
Lyle v. Mercy Hosp. Anderson, 876 F. Supp. 157 (S.D. Ohio 1995). · cites it 2× “Lyle brings this action through counsel under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2005 (c), and Ohio common law.”
Lyles v. Flagship Resort Dev. Corp., 371 F. Supp. 2d 597 (D.N.J. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2005 (c)(1). The Court holds that this provision allows for the award of non-economic damages.”
Show all 27 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.