Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Everything you want to know about employee polygraph tests

By Jonathan Hyman on September 11, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
meet-the-parents.jpg

Lie detector tests, have been all over the news lately. Reports suggest that Donald Trump wants to administer these examinations to the entire White House staff to identify the author of the anonymous New York Times op-ed.

There are no laws prohibiting the White House from using polygraphs in this manner. The federal law that regulates their use in the workplace—the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988—does not apply to the government.

For private-sector employers, however, the EPPA imposes strict prohibitions on the use of any device to render a diagnostic opinion as to the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.

It prohibits employers from:

  • Requiring, requesting, suggesting, or causing an employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test.
  • Using, accepting, referring to, or inquiring about the results of any lie detector test of an employee or prospective employee.
  • Discharging, disciplining, discriminating against, denying employment or promotion, or threatening to take any such action against an employee or prospective employee for refusing to take a test, on the basis of the results of a test, for filing a complaint, for testifying in any proceeding, or for exercising any rights afforded by the EPPA.

Despite these strict prohibitions, there are limited exceptions when an employer can administer a polygraph test (but not other forms of lie detector tests).

One exception covers prospective employees of armored car and other similar security companies. Another covers prospective employees of companies that manufacture controlled substances.

Of more general application to most employers, the third exception covers employees who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident that results in economic loss to the employer and who had access to the property that is the subject of an investigation. Thus, an employer who reasonably believes that an employee has stolen is able to administer a polygraph to confirm the employee’s culpability.

Even if this exception applies, employers cannot use polygraphs carte blanche. There are certain key limits on their administration:

  • Prior to the polygraph examination, the employer must provide to the to-be-examined employee a written notice 
    • explaining the employee’s rights and the limitations imposed, including the prohibited areas of questioning, restrictions on the use of test results, and the employee’s right to file a complaint with the
      Department of Labor alleging violations of EPPA;
    • explaining the specific incident or activity being investigated and the basis for the employer’s reasonable suspicion of the employee’s involvement;
    • reasonably describing the date, time, and place of the
      examination and the employee’s right to consult with legal counsel or an
      employee representative before each phase of the test; and 
    • describing the nature and characteristics of the polygraph
      instrument and examination.
  • The employee can refuse to take a test, terminate a test at any time, or decline to take a test because of a medical condition.
  • The results of a test alone cannot be disclosed to anyone other than the employer or employee without their consent.
  • The polygraph examiner must be licensed, and bonded or insured. Also, the examination is subject to strict conduct standards.

Employers that violate the EPPA are subject to a civil money penalty of $20,521 per violation, in addition to legal and equitable relief such as lost wages and reinstatement, and, in the case of a private civil lawsuit, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.

Polygraph examinations provide employers a powerful tool to confirm and confront employee certain limited employee issues. Employers must carefully follow the EPPA’s requirements so that a slam dunk termination does not turn into a sure-fire lawsuit for the employee.

     

Related Stories

  • A cautionary tale about an attempted fraud
  • Are you ready for rolling background checks of employees?
  • Should employers still test for marijuana?

 

Photo of Jonathan Hyman Jonathan Hyman
Jon Hyman is a trusted advisor to small and mid-sized businesses across various industries, helping them solve workforce challenges and defend against legal disputes.
He is a shareholder at Wickens Herzer Panza in Avon, Ohio, where he chairs the firm’s Employment and Labor
…
Jon Hyman is a trusted advisor to small and mid-sized businesses across various industries, helping them solve workforce challenges and defend against legal disputes.
He is a shareholder at Wickens Herzer Panza in Avon, Ohio, where he chairs the firm’s Employment and Labor practice group and its Craft Beer practice group, and serves on the firm’s Board of Directors. Jon works closely with clients on all aspects of labor and employment law, providing proactive solutions to prevent issues and a strong defense in litigation when conflicts arise.
As outside in-house counsel, Jon is the go-to advisor businesses call when they need help with employee terminations, drafting policies, handling leave or accommodations, or navigating tricky internal complaints. He also brings deep expertise in areas like wage and hour compliance, workplace technology issues, and union avoidance. Jon builds lasting partnerships with his clients, understanding their unique challenges and helping them achieve long-term compliance and success
When it comes to litigation, Jon stands up for businesses in disputes over discrimination, harassment, wrongful discharge, non-competes, trade secrets, wage and hour issues, and union matters. Jon works with his clients to craft targeted defense strategies that protect their interests and aim for resolutions that support their broader business goals.
Jon also leads the firm’s Craft Beer practice, where he helps breweries, brewpubs, taprooms, and other craft beer businesses tackle their unique legal and regulatory needs.
Jon writes the award-winning Ohio Employer Law Blog, which the ABA Blawg Hall of Fame recognized for its daily insights on labor and employment law. His updates help his clients, HR professionals, and other business leaders stay ahead of labor and employment law changes that impact their daily operations.
Read more about Jonathan HymanEmailJonathan's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Ohio Employer Law Blog
  • Organization:
    Wickens Herzer Panza
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo