Opinion ID: 223689
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiff's EPPA Claim

Text: Under the EPPA, employers generally cannot require, request, suggest, or cause any employee ... to take or submit to any lie detector test. 29 U.S.C. § 2002(1). But employers can request that an employee take a polygraph test on four conditions: (1) the test is administered in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer's business ...; (2) the employee had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation; (3) the employer has a reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation; and (4) the employer executes a statement, provided to the examinee before the test, that [is signed and that describes with particularity the employee's alleged misconduct and the basis for the employer's reasonable suspicion]. 29 U.S.C. § 2006(d). Plaintiff does not dispute that the second and fourth conditions were satisfied in this case, but he challenges the district court's conclusions that an ongoing investigation existed and that Defendant had a reasonable suspicion of Plaintiff.
Under the regulations implementing the EPPA, an ongoing investigation must be of a specific incident or activity. 29 C.F.R. § 801.12(b). While the existence of an inventory shortage, standing alone, is no sufficient basis for administering a polygraph test, such testing in response to a shortage is permitted where additional evidence is obtained through subsequent investigation of specific items missing through intentional wrongdoing, and a reasonable suspicion [exists] that the employee to be polygraphed was involved in the incident under investigation. Id. Here, Defendant was investigating a specific incident: the disappearance of $58,000 from the Piedmont Commons branch during the time that Plaintiff managed that branch. Plaintiff argues that Defendant lacked evidence conclusively showing that Plaintiff's violations of the Dual Control Policy pertained to the specific cash dispensers from which the funds were missing. But the regulations do not require employers to have conclusive evidence of a violation before requesting or administering a polygraph test; the regulations require only additional evidence suggesting that the employee in question was involved in the incident. Defendant had obtained evidence  surveillance images and testimony from other employees  of repeated violations of the Dual Control Policy by Plaintiff and by the employees he managed. That policy is designed for the specific purpose of preventing losses like the one Defendant's Piedmont Commons branch had experienced. So, the request for polygraph testing was not the kind of fishing expedition that the EPPA regulations prohibit. Id. Defendant's polygraph request was made in connection with an ongoing investigation.
The regulations implementing the EPPA also define reasonable suspicion, which is an observable, articulable basis in fact which indicates that a particular employee was involved in, or responsible for, an economic loss. 29 C.F.R. § 801.12(f)(1). Mere access or opportunity, standing alone, cannot establish a reasonable suspicion; but the totality of circumstances surrounding the access or opportunity (such as its unauthorized or unusual nature or the fact that access was limited to a single individual) may constitute a factor in determining whether there is a reasonable suspicion. Id. Information from co-workers can also be [a] factor[] in the basis for reasonable suspicion. Id. Under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant had a reasonable suspicion that Plaintiff was involved in the cash shortage. Only four other employees had access to the areas from which the money was taken, and Plaintiff  as branch manager  was responsible for all four of those employees. Defendant's investigators viewed photographic evidence that they believed showed Plaintiff and his employees accessing money and secure areas in violation of the Dual Control Policy. And Plaintiff's coworkers corroborated that evidence, telling the investigators that Plaintiff repeatedly violated the policy. These facts establish more than just that Plaintiff had the opportunity to steal funds; they gave Defendant reason to believe that Plaintiff was actually capitalizing on that opportunity. So, Defendant had a reasonable suspicion of Plaintiff. Because Defendant requested Plaintiff to submit to a polygraph test in connection with an ongoing investigation of a specific incident in which Defendant had a reasonable suspicion that Plaintiff was involved, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's EPPA claim.