Opinion ID: 223689
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ongoing Investigation

Text: 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.