The Polygraph Place

Thanks for stopping by our bulletin board.
Please take just a moment to register so you can post your own questions
and reply to topics. It is free and takes only a minute to register. Just click on the register link


Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
Professional Issues - Private Forum for Examiners ONLY
EPPA exam question

Post New TopicPost A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic: EPPA exam question
rnelson
Member
posted 08-31-2007 12:02 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
The Situation:

A security company wants to polygraph an employee who is placed at a business that experienced a nighttime theft while the security employee was on duty.

The employee claims to have noticed nothing, including noise or activity from the security company's dog or other activity.

The security company itself has incurred no loss, but anticipates a potential loss if they satisfy the claim of the business that contracted their service and incurred the loss.

The security employee is not employed by the company that incurred the loss.

The security company wants to polygraph the employee regarding whether he was physically present (on site) at the time the theft occured. They are suspicious about his complicity, but that is vague.

Question:

Is this a testable situation under EPPA?

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)


IP: Logged

skipwebb
Member
posted 08-31-2007 07:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for skipwebb Click Here to Email skipwebb Edit/Delete Message
The security company can not show a loss (future losses don't count.

The employee is not employed by the company that had the loss.

I'd say you can't test him/her under EPPA based upon sitting through a bunch of TV O'Malley's lectures on the subject as well as discussing this issue with him while drowning bait (or what TV calls fishing)

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 08-31-2007 08:06 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Thanks.

That's what I was thinking too. I asked the company to check with their legal counsel before proceeding.

Too bad. It looked like an interesting case.

Here's another one.

Hotel guest has some missing items, valuable property and some cash. The hotel employees are suspect. Can the hotel request the employee submit to a polygraph?

The hotel itself can show no loss. The posted policies are no liability for property - hotel safe is available.

I say, this one too is asking for trouble.

Any different perspectives?


r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)


IP: Logged

Taylor
Member
posted 08-31-2007 08:50 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Taylor Click Here to Email Taylor Edit/Delete Message
I think the second scenario is very similar and wouldn't make it under EPPA. I would tell them to turn it over to the local LE.

Just my 2 cents worth. Taylor

IP: Logged

skipwebb
Member
posted 08-31-2007 09:32 AM Click Here to See the Profile for skipwebb Click Here to Email skipwebb Edit/Delete Message
I rememb er reading that one happening and the hotel employee went to DOL and DOL said it was a no no. No direct loss to the hotel, no test.

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 08-31-2007 09:52 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
clear 'nuff.

gettin' the 10-footer now - to push it away.

r

IP: Logged

rnelson
Member
posted 08-31-2007 09:57 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rnelson Click Here to Email rnelson Edit/Delete Message
Here's another one.

A housekeeper - long-term (years), but employed by an agency. Missing cash and valuable property. No police report yet.

Family (employer?) wants to polygraph before deciding whether to file police report or discharge.

I said no way, unless there is a police report first, then there can be no adverse action from the polygraph - its simply information for the investigation.

We still have the problem of whom is the employer.

Is this one bad too?

There must be some media thing happening because everyone wants a friggin' polygraph.

Usually, its three EPPA referrals a year. Now, its three this week.

r

IP: Logged

stat
Member
posted 08-31-2007 10:27 AM Click Here to See the Profile for stat Edit/Delete Message
EPPA's are a big pain in the ass, period. They consume so much time, and at the 11th hour they tend to be resolved while your are waiting with equipment-----the guilty one quits, or the employer doesn't follow through with the protocol out of laziness thus necessitating the examiner terminate the process----all while you have spent much time shepharding the employer through the legal process, faxes, follow-up calls and don't forget the liability risk vs. monetary reward ratio. You can have most of them.
Only a practice with polished payment sytems (credit card deposits) can make what amounts to be consolation money 90-98% of those events.

IP: Logged

Barry C
Member
posted 08-31-2007 02:25 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Barry C Click Here to Email Barry C Edit/Delete Message
The family wouldn't be the employer. They contract with the agency, and the agency is the employer. The agency would have to sustain the loss, and they didn't, so it's a no go.

EPPA, as explained to me by an attorney who watched it happen, was supposed to allow for specific-issue testing for business employers, but after agreeing to the unseen law, we got what we have today. They quickly learned - after they had been bamboozled and the law was in effect - that such testing had, in all practicality, been outlawed. They had no energy to fight the fight again. Since then, such tests have been nearly impossible to meet the rigid standards of EPPA.

Think about this one: imagine a legit EPPA test occurring and the person is cleared. Then, based on that NDI, the employer uses that info to narrow down the pool and wants to focus on, let's say, the only other possible violator. Zing! Probable EPPA violation because polygraph results were used against another - even if the first person took the test on his own with no input from anyone. Crazy, huh?

Wasn't this Ted Kennedy's doing? What does he have against the truth being discovered?

It's incredible how one little type can mess up the whole paragraph, but I fixed it before you saw it!

[This message has been edited by Barry C (edited 08-31-2007).]

IP: Logged

All times are PT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New TopicPost A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Polygraph Place

copyright 1999-2003. WordNet Solutions. All Rights Reserved

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.39c
Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.