• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Lie Detecter Test

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Q

Quinnsapp

Guest
I have been accused of shredding an incident report from subordinate staff. First of all I told the Inspector that I do not remember any incident. I do not remember shreeding any incident report. I work for the state of Florida Department of Corrections. I checked the procedure that lists the definition of an incident report. It states, "Incident, where used herein, refers to an accident involving possible injury to a person or damage to equipment, a suspicious action or unusual occurrence or information received related to the aforementioned. The incident may be related to an inmate, an employee or a member of the general public. Each incident should be considered with regard to its possible impact on public safety, the operation of the institution or liability of the agency". Two nurses are stating that they wrote an incident back in September 1999 and that I shredded it. I do not remember doing anything of this nauture. However, with the above definition I do not think it fit the criteria of being defined as an incident. What happened was this. The Nursing Supervisor was out of town and the nurses could not reach her. A mistake was made on the schedule by the supervisor and there was no nurse scheduled for the night shift. I was contacted by one of the nurses that no one was due to come in. I informed them that one of them would have to stay. They did not like the assignment. They claim in an allegation to the inspector that they filed this in September and that I destroyed the paperwork which they claim to be an incident. I informed the inspector that I do not recall and that this in my opinion was a management issue that was handled in accordance to the expectations that Florida Career Service places on managers such as myself. He disagrees and says that this would be an incident. He wants me to take a lie dectector test to confirm that I did not shread an incident report. Please advise. Thanks.
 


I

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quinnsapp:
I have been accused of shredding an incident report from subordinate staff. First of all I told the Inspector that I do not remember any incident. I do not remember shreeding any incident report. I work for the state of Florida Department of Corrections. I checked the procedure that lists the definition of an incident report. It states, "Incident, where used herein, refers to an accident involving possible injury to a person or damage to equipment, a suspicious action or unusual occurrence or information received related to the aforementioned. The incident may be related to an inmate, an employee or a member of the general public. Each incident should be considered with regard to its possible impact on public safety, the operation of the institution or liability of the agency". Two nurses are stating that they wrote an incident back in September 1999 and that I shredded it. I do not remember doing anything of this nauture. However, with the above definition I do not think it fit the criteria of being defined as an incident. What happened was this. The Nursing Supervisor was out of town and the nurses could not reach her. A mistake was made on the schedule by the supervisor and there was no nurse scheduled for the night shift. I was contacted by one of the nurses that no one was due to come in. I informed them that one of them would have to stay. They did not like the assignment. They claim in an allegation to the inspector that they filed this in September and that I destroyed the paperwork which they claim to be an incident. I informed the inspector that I do not recall and that this in my opinion was a management issue that was handled in accordance to the expectations that Florida Career Service places on managers such as myself. He disagrees and says that this would be an incident. He wants me to take a lie dectector test to confirm that I did not shread an incident report. Please advise. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My response:

LIE DETECTOR TESTING

During the past decade, more than two million private sector employees each year were asked to take a "lie detector" test. Based on these tests, approximately 300,000 workers annually were branded liars and fired, disciplined or not hired as a result.

Despite the claims of "lie detector" examiners, there is no machine that can detect lies with any degree of accuracy. The "lie detector" does not measure truth-telling; it measures changes in blood pressure, breath rate and perspiration rate, but those physiological changes can be triggered by a wide range of emotions such as anger, sadness, embarrassment and fear. In addition, a variety of medical conditions such as colds, headaches and neurological and muscular problems can distort the results. Indeed, as an American Medical Association expert testified during public hearings before Congress, "the [lie detector] cannot detect lies much better than a coin toss."

The ACLU has long favored protective legislation against indiscriminate "lie detector" testing in the American workplace, not only because it is unreliable, but also because it is an extreme invasion of privacy. For example, in order to establish "normal" physiological reactions of the person being tested, "lie detector" examiners ask questions that purposely embarrass, frighten and humiliate workers. An ACLU lawsuit in l987 revealed that state employees in North Carolina were routinely asked to answer such questions as "When was the last time you unintentionally exposed yourself after drinking?" and "Who was the last child that got you sexy?" Polygraphs have been used by unscrupulous employers to harass union organizers and whistle-blowers, to coerce employees into "confessing" infractions they did not commit, and to falsely implicate fellow employees.

For all of the above reasons, the ACLU strongly supported passage of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA). As a result of the new law, most employees will no longer be forced to endure a humiliating and invasive process or have their jobs jeopardized by a machine that does not work.

Here are the ACLU's answers to some questions frequently asked by the public about "lie detector" testing and their rights under the new law.

Q: What does the Employee Polygraph Protection Act do?
A: The EPPA, with some exceptions, prohibits the use of "lie detectors" by private sector employers involved in or affecting interstate commerce. In the law, the term "lie detector" includes polygraphs, deceptographs, voice stress analyzers and "any other similar device that is used...for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual." The ban applies to all random, and most pre-employment, testing and will eliminate about 80 percent of the testing done in the private sector in the past. The EPPA does not prohibit drug tests or written honesty tests.

Under the EPPA, employers may not require, request, suggest or cause any employee or applicant to submit to a "lie detector" test, nor may they discharge, discipline or discriminate against any employee or job applicant for refusing to take such a test, for "failing" such a test, or for filing a complaint or exercising any other rights conferred by the legislation. The EPPA also requires employers to post a notice informing employees of the Act's provisions in a conspicuous place at the work site.

Q: Are there any exceptions to the ban on "lie detectors"?
A: Yes. The EPPA permits "lie detector" testing in certain circumstances:

The Act permits "lie detector" testing of federal, state and local government employees.

The federal government may administer "lie detector" tests to certain government contractors engaged in national security-related activities.

Private security firms and companies that manufacture and distribute pharmaceuticals are permitted to test certain job applicants.

Any employer may administer "lie detector" tests in connection with an ongoing investigation of an economic loss or injury to his/her business on these conditions: The employee under suspicion must have had access to the property, and the employer must state in writing the basis for a reasonable suspicion that the employee was guilty.
Department of Labor regulations, which can be obtained from your local Wage and Hour Division of the U. S. Department of Labor, explain in detail what categories of employees or potential employees can be tested and under what circumstances.

Q: Does the EPPA protect those employees it permits to be tested from the worst abuses and misuses of the "lie detector" test?
A: Yes, even those employees the EPPA allows to be tested are afforded a wide range of rights. Under the Act, the results of the "lie detector" test cannot be the sole basis for an employer's action against an employee. Secondly, during all phases of the testing, the employee is granted the right:

to stop the test at any time,

not to be asked questions in a degrading or needlessly intrusive manner,

not to be asked questions about beliefs, opinions or affiliations in the areas of religion, racial matters, politics, sexual behavior, or the lawful activities of labor organizations,

to decline to take the test based on evidence that a medical or psychological condition might cause abnormal test responses.
Furthermore, before the test is administered, the employee to be tested must be given the following information in writing: 1) the date, time and location of the test, and notice of the right to consult with legal counsel or an employee representative before each phase of the test; 2) a list of all questions to be asked during the test; 3) the nature and characteristics of the tests and of the instruments involved; 4) the design of the testing area -- whether it has a two-way mirror, a camera, or any other device through which the test can be observed; 5) notice that either the employee or the employer may, with the other's knowledge an
 
D

DT7777777

Guest
According to your description of an incident report, the form the nurses filled out does seem to fit that description. The mixup with the schedule does concern the operation and liability of the facility. If there were no nurses around due to the mixup and someone were to need a nurse then the facility would be responsible and liable for any injuries that may occur. So it does sound like this was an incident report they filled out. However, you can take the lie detector test and may still pass it if you truly believe that this was not an incident test. You never know what can happen with a lie detector test.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top