29 U.S.C. § 2009
Effect on other law and agreements
Except as provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 2006 of this title, this chapter shall not preempt any provision of any State or local law or of any negotiated collective bargaining agreement that prohibits lie detector tests or is more restrictive with respect to lie detector tests than any provision of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1990–1997 · leading case: Hall v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 616 (NY 1990).
Hall v. United Parcel Serv. of Am., Inc., 5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 616 (NY 1990). “Although Congress made clear that the Federal statutory scheme was not intended to preempt more restrictive State legislation ( 29 USC § 2009 ), this detailed, far-reaching act greatly diminishes the strength of the arguments for recognizing a new tort remedy at the State level.”
Mennen v. Easter Stores, 951 F. Supp. 838 (N.D. Iowa 1997). “As support for this assertion, Easter cites 29 U.S.C. § 2009 , which provides as follows: Except as provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 2006 of this title, this chapter shall not preempt any provision of any state or local law .”
Stehney v. Perry, 907 F. Supp. 806 (D.N.J. 1995). “29 U.S.C. § 2009 . Thus, both the Constitution and federal law expressly preempt states from prohibiting the use of polygraphs as part of a security-clearance background investigation.”
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.