- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 18, 2003, 12:50 AMDebbie,
According to Sec. 2002 (3)(b) of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, it is "unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce...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 on the basis of the results of any lie detector test..."
According to Sec. 2002 (3)(b) of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, it is "unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce...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 on the basis of the results of any lie detector test..."
Posted by Debbie
- Feb 17, 2003, 08:17 PM three weeks ago someone stole 50 thousand dollars from our store. They have taken polygrag. My sister in law was told she failed her test. I know this is a damn lie and have been doing research and have come to the conclusion that if you are telling the truth and you didn't commit the crime DO NOT TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST it could ruin your day and ypour life if you fail this test. My question is can your emplorer fire you only on the basis of this unvalidated polygragh test?
Posted by Seeker
- Feb 01, 2003, 08:21 AMQuote from: guest on Jan 31, 2003, 08:11 PM
Don't you think you ought to refer the parties to an attorney. What gives you or anyone who is not a lawyer the right to provide legal advice or interpretations regarding a matter so important as a job.I ain't one of those damnedolygraph examiners, but you are WAY off course in making the suggestions that you are.....you did not say it was opinion, or your understanding...you said it was a blatant violation. I hope all three sue you for everything you have you nicompoop!
It sure is good to be back, guys!
Augh..not that this even dignified a response, but for the sake of newbies passing in, here goes.
Guest:
First of all, Mr. Maschke did in fact refer JohnWayne to an attorney -- if you bothered to read the thread.
Posted by: George W. Maschke Posted on: 01/25/03 at 04:43:58
You may also wish to consult with a local attorney competent in labor law before deciding what course to take. The Martindale Lawyer Locator service can be helpful in finding one.
As for your implications that I may have suggested that I was advising the three (from my question to George), I think I was quite clear in only stating that I knew about the case. I was merely pondering, and never once did I make a suggestion that I was somehow advising anyone.
*scratching my head at the remainder of your gibberish* Perhaps you, guest, would find stumbling blocks in an attempt to read the EPPA laws that are out there in plain English for the protection of employees at all levels.
Hmmm...now making educated guesses makes us somehow liable?
I find it amazingly difficult to see where you are going with stating that you "...hope all three sue you for everything you have....'
Guest, in case you have failed to be notified, free discussion and debate is a perfectly legal activity these days.
I strongly urge you to patiently read through entire threads before posting thoughtless venom. It makes the discussions and debates in here much more enjoyable to the participants.
Regards,
Seeker
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Feb 01, 2003, 07:54 AMguest,
Perhaps you should read my posts before commenting on them?
You chastise me for not referring the parties to an attorney. But I did exactly that, referring "JohnWayne" to the Martindale Lawyer Locator.
You ask, "What gives you or anyone who is not a lawyer the right to provide legal advice or interpretations regarding a matter so important as a job[?]"
"JohnWayne" asked for any info or advice. He didn't ask that only lawyers respond. The provisions of the EPPA are written in plain English. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to understand them.
You also write, "you did not say it was opinion, or your understanding...you said it was a blatant violation." No, dear guest, I wrote to "John Wayne" that "it appears that [his employer] is setting himself up for a lawsuit(s) through a blatant violation of the EPPA" (emphasis added).
Guest, you claim that you "ain't one of those damnedolygraph [sic] examiners." Perhaps not. But you might make a good polygraph chartgazer. You display the same intellectual sloth and willingness to make accusations without evidence that is all too common amongst our friends in the polygraph community.
You conclude by writing, "I hope all three sue you for everything you have you nicompoop! [sic]" You've suddenly shifted to the case posted by Seeker, in response to which I simply wrote, "The firings you've described seem like a probable violation of the EPPA." How do you figure that this is grounds for a lawsuit?
Perhaps you should read my posts before commenting on them?
You chastise me for not referring the parties to an attorney. But I did exactly that, referring "JohnWayne" to the Martindale Lawyer Locator.
You ask, "What gives you or anyone who is not a lawyer the right to provide legal advice or interpretations regarding a matter so important as a job[?]"
"JohnWayne" asked for any info or advice. He didn't ask that only lawyers respond. The provisions of the EPPA are written in plain English. One doesn't have to be a lawyer to understand them.
You also write, "you did not say it was opinion, or your understanding...you said it was a blatant violation." No, dear guest, I wrote to "John Wayne" that "it appears that [his employer] is setting himself up for a lawsuit(s) through a blatant violation of the EPPA" (emphasis added).
Guest, you claim that you "ain't one of those damnedolygraph [sic] examiners." Perhaps not. But you might make a good polygraph chartgazer. You display the same intellectual sloth and willingness to make accusations without evidence that is all too common amongst our friends in the polygraph community.
You conclude by writing, "I hope all three sue you for everything you have you nicompoop! [sic]" You've suddenly shifted to the case posted by Seeker, in response to which I simply wrote, "The firings you've described seem like a probable violation of the EPPA." How do you figure that this is grounds for a lawsuit?
Posted by guest
- Jan 31, 2003, 08:11 PMDon't you think you ought to refer the parties to an attorney. What gives you or anyone who is not a lawyer the right to provide legal advice or interpretations regarding a matter so important as a job.I ain't one of those damnedolygraph examiners, but you are WAY off course in making the suggestions that you are.....you did not say it was opinion, or your understanding...you said it was a blatant violation. I hope all three sue you for everything you have you nicompoop!
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 31, 2003, 10:38 AMSeeker,
The firings you've described seem like a probable violation of the EPPA.
The firings you've described seem like a probable violation of the EPPA.
Posted by Seeker
- Jan 31, 2003, 09:56 AMGeorge:
I have a question here.
I know of a business owner who recently discovered some potential theft in his businesses. He called in three of the managers and told them that he knew that at least one of them was the guilty party. When none of them confessed, he demanded polygraph exams of them.
All three denied the polygraph, and one of them hired an attorney. In the end, none of them took a polygraph, and he subsequently fired all three of them.
When I heard this I was outraged! I wasn't sure if any of these salaried employees had any legitimate leg to stand on if they tried to sue the employer. I am just wondering if you think this is a violation of the EPPA. It is my understanding that it is, but you know, I am not good yet with all of the legalities of the polygraph.
Thank you.
Regards,
Seeker
I have a question here.
I know of a business owner who recently discovered some potential theft in his businesses. He called in three of the managers and told them that he knew that at least one of them was the guilty party. When none of them confessed, he demanded polygraph exams of them.
All three denied the polygraph, and one of them hired an attorney. In the end, none of them took a polygraph, and he subsequently fired all three of them.
When I heard this I was outraged! I wasn't sure if any of these salaried employees had any legitimate leg to stand on if they tried to sue the employer. I am just wondering if you think this is a violation of the EPPA. It is my understanding that it is, but you know, I am not good yet with all of the legalities of the polygraph.
Thank you.
Regards,
Seeker
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jan 25, 2003, 07:43 AMThe applicable law is the 1988 Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). Section 2006(d) provides a limited exemption for ongoing investigations by employers that don't have broader exemptions (e.g., government agencies). This is the section that most likely applies to your employer. As you suggested, the employer must, among other things, notify the employee in writing of "the basis of the employer's reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation." This would seem to preclude the "blanket method" your employer seems to have in mind.
Your employer's motives may be sincere, but it appears that he is setting himself up for a lawsuit(s) through a blatant violation of the EPPA.
Anonymously posting copies of the poster that Beech Trees suggested is one step you may consider taking. It will be helpful if you are not the only employee at your company who understands that polygraphy is a fraud. You and your colleagues will want to read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector before sitting for any polygraph "test."
Alternatively (or perhaps better, in addition to the above), I would be happy to contact your employer by e-mail or fax, alerting him to the provisions of the EPPA and to the information on polygraphy that is available on AntiPolygraph.org (including, for example, Professor William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis.") This may help to dissuade your employer from proceding with his ill-conceived polygraph dragnet. Moreover, in the event that he should go ahead with his polygraph scheme and you or any co-workers should take legal action against him, it will provided substantive proof that he had been informed both about the provisions of the EPPA and the unreliability of polygraphy. (I'll be happy to provide a sworn statement regarding any e-mail or fax I may send.) If you would like me to do this, you can either post your employer's name and contact information here, or e-mail me at maschke@antipolygraph.org.
You may also wish to consult with a local attorney competent in labor law before deciding what course to take. The Martindale Lawyer Locator service can be helpful in finding one.
On a final note, AntiPolygraph.org is seeking passage of a Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act (CEPPA) that would eliminate all the loopholes of the 1988 EPPA. I hope you'll consider working with us to make this proposed legislation the law of the land. You can print out the full text of the CEPPA and include it in letters to your congressperson and senators asking them to sponsor this legislation.
Your employer's motives may be sincere, but it appears that he is setting himself up for a lawsuit(s) through a blatant violation of the EPPA.
Anonymously posting copies of the poster that Beech Trees suggested is one step you may consider taking. It will be helpful if you are not the only employee at your company who understands that polygraphy is a fraud. You and your colleagues will want to read The Lie Behind the Lie Detector before sitting for any polygraph "test."
Alternatively (or perhaps better, in addition to the above), I would be happy to contact your employer by e-mail or fax, alerting him to the provisions of the EPPA and to the information on polygraphy that is available on AntiPolygraph.org (including, for example, Professor William G. Iacono's article, "Forensic 'Lie Detection': Procedures Without Scientific Basis.") This may help to dissuade your employer from proceding with his ill-conceived polygraph dragnet. Moreover, in the event that he should go ahead with his polygraph scheme and you or any co-workers should take legal action against him, it will provided substantive proof that he had been informed both about the provisions of the EPPA and the unreliability of polygraphy. (I'll be happy to provide a sworn statement regarding any e-mail or fax I may send.) If you would like me to do this, you can either post your employer's name and contact information here, or e-mail me at maschke@antipolygraph.org.
You may also wish to consult with a local attorney competent in labor law before deciding what course to take. The Martindale Lawyer Locator service can be helpful in finding one.
On a final note, AntiPolygraph.org is seeking passage of a Comprehensive Employee Polygraph Protection Act (CEPPA) that would eliminate all the loopholes of the 1988 EPPA. I hope you'll consider working with us to make this proposed legislation the law of the land. You can print out the full text of the CEPPA and include it in letters to your congressperson and senators asking them to sponsor this legislation.
Posted by beech trees
- Jan 24, 2003, 11:53 PMJohn,
Here is one possible course of action:
Anonymously post several copies of the Antipolygraph.org Campus Poster around your workplace.... if physically posting them isn't an option owing to scrutiny, simply leave them lying about anywhere.... after a circumspect amount of time, show one to your boss and tell him about this website-- or better yet one of your fellow workers will do so. *Then* tell him to shove his polygraph.
Here is one possible course of action:
Anonymously post several copies of the Antipolygraph.org Campus Poster around your workplace.... if physically posting them isn't an option owing to scrutiny, simply leave them lying about anywhere.... after a circumspect amount of time, show one to your boss and tell him about this website-- or better yet one of your fellow workers will do so. *Then* tell him to shove his polygraph.
Posted by JohnWayne
- Jan 24, 2003, 11:04 PMMy employer has sent a letter to me stating that polygraph testing of employees "past and present" may be forthcoming. This is in light of some recently discovered theft and an ongoing law enforcement investigation. My boss stated in the letter if anyone wishes that he not provide the LE agency with our info regarding this to feel free to contact him...
This letter, I believe, was sent to all employees.
I fear if I refuse the polygraph I will be immediately suspected. If I am called to take the polygraph, don't I have to be informed as to specifically why I am being suspected, and not this blanket method of "employees past and present"?
In other words, if my employer calls me to take the test, doesn't he have to state what grounds or basis I am being specifically called to take the test??
Thanks for any info or advice.
This letter, I believe, was sent to all employees.
I fear if I refuse the polygraph I will be immediately suspected. If I am called to take the polygraph, don't I have to be informed as to specifically why I am being suspected, and not this blanket method of "employees past and present"?
In other words, if my employer calls me to take the test, doesn't he have to state what grounds or basis I am being specifically called to take the test??
Thanks for any info or advice.