Employment Law: Employees taking Polygraph Tests
LAW 629 - Employment Law
Arizona State University
April 3, 2024
Running head: EMPLOYMENT LAW 1
Employment Law: Employees taking Polygraph Tests
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
In many instances, employees and job applicants have been obligated to
take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers have for
decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job applicants to
measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily functions such as
blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this tool to ask personal
questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like most machines, a
polygraph machine is prone to error and when an employee or applicant
reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as liars and maybe denied
employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act. In many instances, employees and job applicants have been
obligated to take a lie detector test before getting employed. Employers
have for decades imposed psychological stress evaluator tests on job
applicants to measure their truthfulness by monitoring their bodily
functions such as blood pressure and perspirations. Often, they use this
tool to ask personal questions such as sexual preferences and finances. Like
most machines, a polygraph machine is prone to error and when an
employee or applicant reacts to an offensive question, they are labeled as
liars and maybe denied employment (Guerin, 2016).
Federal law and state laws prohibit employers from forcing potential
employees from taking a lie detector test. In 1988, the employee polygraph
protection act was passed and it covers private employers in interstate
commerce. This Act prohibits the specified employers from requesting or
requiring any job applicant or employee from taking a polygraph test, using
or referring to the results of the lie detector tests and/or dismissing,
disciplining or discriminating against an employee or job applicant who
refuses to take the lie detector test. However, government employees are
not protected by this law and can therefore be made to take the tests. Civil
service rules can be used by government employees who want to dodge
the test (Guerin, 2016).
The polygraph test can be administered on job applicants or employees in
jobs concerning security, handling drugs or other sensitive work relating to
national defense. A lie detector test can also be given when investigating
specific theft and crimes. The law states that an employee who falls under
these categories and is supposed to get the test is to be given a written
notice at least 48hours prior to the test and should be reasonable suspicion
that the employee was involved in the theft or other conduct triggering the
investigation. In addition, the examiner cannot ask questions that are
intrusive or demeaning to the employee or job applicant (Berlin, 2015).
With consideration to the above discussion, it is correct to deduce that
Taylor being required to take the polygraph test is a violation of his right
and the employer is also breaking federal and state laws. Taylor can sue
the bank when he is not considered for the job by claiming that he has been
discriminated against because he refused to take the test as stated in the
1988 Act.
References
Berlin, R., 2015. When and How Can You Give Polygraph Tests to
Employees? National Labor Relations Act. Retrieved On August 15, 2016
from Www.Alllaw.Com/Articles/Employment/Article4.Asp
Guerin, L., 2016. State Laws on Polygraphs and Lie Detector Test. National
Labor Relations Act. Retrieved On August 15, 2016 from
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/state-laws-polygraphs-lie-detector-
tests.html
