Monthly Archives: May 2010

Lie Detector / Polygraph Testing of Employees is Almost Always Illegal

May 22nd, 2010

LieDetector.jpgUnder the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (the “Act”), employees and prospective employees of private employers can rarely, if ever, be compelled to take a polygraph test. (Government employees and employees of private government contractors engaged in national security or similar matters are excluded).
Generally speaking, a private employer may not:
(i) require, request, suggest or cause an employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;or
(ii) use, accept, refer to, or inquire about the results of any lie detector test of an employee or prospective employee; or
(iii) discharge, discipline, discriminate against, deny employment or promotion, or threaten to take any such action against an employee or prospective employee for refusal 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 Act.
Private employers may force an employee to take a polygraph test under one of three very limited exemptions:
(i) current 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; or
(ii) prospective employees of armored car, security alarm, and security guard firms who protect facilities, materials or operations affecting health or safety, national security, or currency and other like instruments; or
(iii) prospective employees of pharmaceutical and other firms authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances who will have direct access to such controlled substances, as well as current employees who had access to persons or property that are the subject of an ongoing investigation.
There a variety of other regulations concerning how polygraph tests can be administered, what notice is required to be given to employees being polygraphed, and what rights employees have to refuse to take a polygraph.
Employees being asked to take a polygraph test should contact an experienced employment attorney before agreeing to the test, and employers should be very careful to ensure that they are complying with the Act. The Act requires strict compliance, and any deviation from strict compliance will subject the employer to a civil lawsuit brought by the employee or prospective employee.

Posted in Polygraphs & Lie Detectors | Comments Off

Department of Corrections Liable For Failure to Prevent Inmates from Sexually Harassing Female Correctional Officers

May 7th, 2010

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act places liability on an employer who fails to take appropriate corrective action when female employees are being sexually harassed by co-workers, supervisors, and third-parties who are not employed by the offending employer. For example, if a company has a regular UPS or FedEx deliveryman who makes offensive jokes or engages in offensive conduct while on the employer’s premises, female employees are well within their rights to complain to management that it needs to stop the conduct by the UPS driver. The fact that the UPS driver does not work for the employer is wholly irrelevant to the analysis. Failure to stop the sexually hostile environment is illegal, no matter the cause of the sexually hostile environment.
In Beckford v. Florida Department of Corrections, the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of female correctional officers who were sexually harassed by inmates. This is the first time the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed liability premised on sexual harassment by inmates. Other circuits have made similar conclusions regarding inmates. The Department of Corrections argued that prisons should be exempt from Title VII because of the unique nature of prisons and inmates. The Court categorically rejected the Department’s argument and held that prisons are no different from other employers. The Department knew that female officers were complaining about gender based abuse from inmates, but the Department did nothing to remedy the situation.
Beckford is also important because it reaffirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide that the use of certain words, including cunt, bitch, whore and slut, are inherently gender based.
The unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Pryor, is here:

Questions about sexual harassment? Contact an experienced employment attorney before you quit and before you lose your rights.

Posted in Government Workers, Sex Discrimination, Sexual Harassment | Comments Off

Bank of America Facing Class Action Lawsuit for Sex Discrimination and Pay Inequities

May 4th, 2010

Judy Calibuso is a financial advisor with Bank of America here in Miami, Florida. She has alleged, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated female employees, that Bank of America, through its subsidiary Merrill Lynch, systematically discriminates against female financial advisors by giving them less opportunities and a less favorable compensation scheme. Although Ms. Calibuso lives in Miami, the class-action lawsuit is pending in the federal district court in Brooklyn, New York.
The class-action complaint is here:

Questions about gender discrimination? Contact an experienced employment attorney today.

Posted in Class and Collective Actions, Sex Discrimination | Comments Off