|
Author
|
Topic: Testing Pregnant Women
|
Guyhesel
Member
|
posted 07-29-2005 09:52 AM
  
Please can I get your opinions on testing pregnant women.I have in the past kept away from testing in these circumstances however have a client who wants a test. She states she is 8 weeks pregnant with no complications. Your experience would be useful. Thanks
Guy IP: Logged |
Gordon H. Barland
Member
|
posted 07-29-2005 10:57 AM
Guy, There is no medical reason not to examine pregnant women. I think the reason most schools and LE agencies refuse to do so is fear of being sued if the woman has a spontaneous abortion or any other complication within a few weeks of the examination. However, pregnancy is a normal physiological condition and is no inherent bar to being examined. In fact, about 10 or 15 years ago a woman applying for a job who was refused a polygraph test because she was pregnant sued the examiner and his agency on the basis that she was being discriminated against. I believe she won her suit, and the Federal government now upholds the right of a pregnant woman to be tested. If my memory is wrong, will somebody more knowledgeable please correct me. Best regards, Gordon ------------------
IP: Logged |
Bob
Member
|
posted 07-29-2005 12:54 PM
Guy and Gordon;
I would agree with you, Gordon, there is no medical reason which would prohibit a pregnant woman form undergoing an examination, particularlywithin the first tri-mester period. However, I personally do not test pregnant females unless there is a medical release and a very specific waiver on their part to release liability and accept full responsibility in regards to their pregnancy (I admit I generally make every effort to talk them out of the exam until termination of pregnancy- nor do I immediately recall any case where a pregnant woman who came to my office and was willing to sign such a waiver). I don’t think there would be any disagreement that a contributing factor for a miscarriage could be due to physical or mental stresses; that being the case, just exactly how could we adequately defend ourselves? Polygraph testing certainly would be ‘mentally stressful’ to an examinee. The concern of being sued is very real. A few days ago I spoke to a Rep of Complete Equity Markets Insurance, who advised me a lawsuit is currently pending wherein the pregnant woman claims she miscarried as a result of the being polygraph tested. In this case scenario however, it is my understanding the examiner did not inquire if the woman was or was not pregnant during the pretest. Unfortunately I don’t know any other the case facts. Meanwhile, as the suit progresses, the examiner surely is going to have some major headaches of his own. Gordon,
I heard of the scenario you described but I cannot provide specifics either. A pregant woman should have the ‘right’ to be polygraph tested for employment (if the polygraph test is part of the application/acceptance process). However, I also believe she should be fully informed of risks and given the ‘choice’ (via specific waiver) to proceed, and therefore not being discriminated against. To me, it is not unlike women have the ‘right’ and sometimes make ‘choices’ to have an abortion. Bob IP: Logged |
Ted Todd
Member
|
posted 07-29-2005 06:31 PM
Gordon,Your memory is correct. That very case was discussed(I think) at AAPP in Austin. The woman was a police applicant who was pregnant and the agency declined to test her. They also did not hire her absent the polygraph. She sued and won under the ADA. I have heard that both the agency and the examiner had to pay. The guy that this happened to is an AAPP member but for the life of me, I can't remember his name. Any help on this one folks?? Ted IP: Logged |
Guyhesel
Member
|
posted 07-30-2005 04:54 AM
Gordon & BobThanks for the info. I will ensure that any test is only completed with a waiver already signed! Many thanks Guy IP: Logged |
Taylor
Member
|
posted 07-30-2005 02:44 PM
Also check your state rules and regulations. In Utah we CANNOT test a pregnant woman. It doesn't matter if we have a signed waiver and release from her and her doctor - we could loose our license. I don't agree with Utah's rules but I follow them. Hope to see everyone at APA and put some faces to the names. IP: Logged |
Barry C
Member
|
posted 08-01-2005 12:32 PM
Just to add a little bit of anecdotal evidence to the mix, I once tested a woman who was six months pregnant, though she didn't look that far along. She was a police dispatch applicant. We had her get a waiver, and I explained I knew of no dangers associated with taking the exam with the exception of the stress associated with it, which was a wildcard for anybody who takes part in ANY stressful situation. (Polygraph need not be any more stressful than the interview, depending on the candidate's personality.)The bottom line: if I put her charts among any two sets, you'd never have any idea she was pregnant. There was one movement on the motion sensor (the baby moved), but I couldn't see it otherwise. We gave her the test with her doctor's okay as our way of making a reasonable accommodation (the alternative was to wait until after she delivered, but she opted not to do so). I think that's the important point. You've got to make any reasonable accommodations you can under the ADA. Even though the Utah statute says you can't, that might not save you. The plaintiff would simply sue you, whomever else she could, and the State for the ADA violation. You might want to check with your state rep about fixing that since it requires you to discriminate (illegally). The State probably has a law to protect itself, but you'd be left on your own. IP: Logged |
Capstun
Member
|
posted 08-03-2005 01:15 PM
Our agency does not allow the testing of pregnant women, for all the reasons already stated. As for applicants, we hire the pregnant woman conditionally. That is, she is hired with the stipulation that she successfully completes the polygraph after the baby is born. If she doesn't pass (not just SR, but also new, serious disclosures), her employment is terminated. I tested an employee who worked her for 6 months, had the baby, was off three months on parental leave and when she came back to work the first day, she took her test. This is what the attorneys in risk management came up with. I guess it works and it keeps the lawyers happy! Jim
IP: Logged |
J L Ogilvie
Moderator
|
posted 08-03-2005 05:42 PM
Our legal department here is adamant that we would have a much bigger legal issue by not testing a pregnant woman than we would if we did and she aborted in the chair. We have been orderd to test them.Having said that I can tell you first hand that any significant stess can cause an spontaneous miscarriage. Several years ago my daughter was applying for a job. She was accepted to the training school and new going in that she would have a test on material they handed out the first night. She also new if she didn't pass she would be dropped. I guess you can all figure out what happened. Although she didn't even realize at the time she was pregnant she lost the baby. It makes me very nervous when I am told test a pregnant women. My advice would be to get a waiver if possible but test them. Jack ------------------
[This message has been edited by J L Ogilvie (edited 08-03-2005).] IP: Logged |
egelb
Member
|
posted 08-14-2005 09:19 PM
More stories from the past. In 1970 an examiner for Century Theatres in L.A. tested a pregnant applicant. The baby was born with a deformity and the lady sued and settlrd out of court. We decided not to test pregnant women but I made the fatal mistake of telling the agency that sent an applicant in for testing that we had a policy of not testing. They didnt hire her and she went to EEOC complaining. I had to sign a consent decree to get off the hook, saying I would not tell clients if an applicant was pregnant.
Ed
IP: Logged |
J.B. McCloughan
Member
|
posted 08-15-2005 10:40 PM
Here are a few interesting cases on the issue: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/12-23-02.html
http://www.eeoc.gov/press/12-28-04.html Here is a link with a simple explanation of the law on the subject, including a link to the law within the explanation:
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/pregnancy.html
[This message has been edited by J.B. McCloughan (edited 08-15-2005).] IP: Logged |
sackett
Moderator
|
posted 08-16-2005 07:14 AM
I just got a call yesterday on this. A guys wants to know if his pregnant wife was cheating about the time she got pregnant. I told them I would not test her, but I'm sure some "chart roller" out here will.It was great seeing many of you in San Antonio. Jim IP: Logged |
Lieguy
Member
|
posted 08-26-2005 12:11 AM
Ted;
That examiner who got sued was Terry Ball...there is a bad problem betwen the APA and other poly organizations advising us not to test pregnant women and the pregnancy disability/discrimination act provisions..we're kinda screwed no matter what we decide here![This message has been edited by Lieguy (edited 08-26-2005).] IP: Logged |
Polygraph Place Bulletin Board
