Opinion ID: 77200
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the Company's Conduct Qualify for the Ongoing Investigation Exemption to the EPPA?

Text: 21 Even if the Company's conduct were an activity described in 29 U.S.C. § 2002, the EPPA permits such conduct if it is justified by one of the exemptions listed in 29 U.S.C. § 2006. The relevant exception for the purposes of this case is the ongoing investigation exemption. 29 U.S.C. § 2006(d). This exemption permits employers to request a lie detector test if: 22 (1) the test is administered in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer's business such as theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, or an act of unlawful industrial espionage or sabotage; 23 (2) the employee had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation; 24 (3) the employer has a reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation; and 25 (4) the employer executes a statement, provided to the examinee before the test [that describes with specificity the examinee's alleged misconduct]. 26 Id. 27 Based on the eyewitness testimony of a former employee, the Company reasonably suspected the plaintiffs of stealing or having someone steal company property that was readily accessible to them. Thus, the requirements of (2) and (3) have clearly been met, as has the theft, embezzlement . . . requirement of (1). 28 As for requirement (4), it is inapplicable in this context. The requirement refers not to employees but examinees, that is to say, individuals who will take the proposed tests. See Polkey v. Transtecs Corp., 404 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir.2005) (relying on the distinction between employee and examinee to hold that the notice requirement applies only to individuals who will take lie detector tests). Because plaintiffs declined to take lie detector tests, they were never examinees and so the Company was never obliged to provide them with statements of alleged misconduct. 29 The remaining issue is whether the Company's investigation could be considered ongoing by the time each plaintiff was asked to take a polygraph exam. The text of the statute itself provides no elaboration beyond the term ongoing investigation. 29 U.S.C. § 2006(d). However, the most plausible construction of the statutory language would encompass the references in the instant case to the taking of a polygraph exam. There is ample evidence in the record demonstrating that the Company's decision with respect to each accused employee remained open throughout the grievance proceedings, as evidenced by the Company's acceptance of new information as to several employees and offering them reinstatement. With respect to each plaintiff, the reference occurred as part of the ongoing proceedings pursuant to the established procedures for determining employee culpability. As noted above, the agreement between the Company and the Union established a four-step procedure to determine an employee's culpability. Pending completion of the last step in the procedures, neither the culpability of the employee nor his employment status had been settled, as evidenced by the reinstatement of Johnson at the last step. Indeed, in this case the Union would not permit the Company's investigator to interview or question plaintiffs with respect to the allegations, indicating that the matter could be handled through the established procedures. Under these circumstances, we hold that the Company's ongoing investigation and its final determination of the employment status of each plaintiff was not concluded until completion of the last step of the established procedures. 30 In conclusion, even if the Company's conduct were an activity described by § 2002, such conduct would be permitted under the ongoing investigation exemption. 6 31