RHODE ISLAND LIE DETECTOR TESTS AS CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT SECTION. SECTION. 28-6.1-1. Lie detector tests prohibited. 28-6.1-2. Penalty for violations-Excep tion. 28-6.1-1. Lie detector tests prohibited. No employer or agent of any employer shall require or subject any employee to any lie detector tests as a condition of employment or continued employment. History of Section. Comparative Legislation. G. L., § 28-6.1-1, as assigned, P. L. 1964, ch. 229, § 1. Lie detector tests of employees prohibited: Mass. Laws Ann., ch. 149, § 19B. 28-6.1-2. Penalty for violations-Exception-Any employer who subjects any person employed by him, or any person applying for employment, to a lie detector test, or causes, directly or indirectly, any such employee or applicant to take a lie detector test, shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200). This section shall not apply to lie detector tests administered by law enforcement agencies in the performance of their official duties. History of Section. G. L., § 28-6.1-2, as assigned, P. L. 1964, ch. 229, § 1. PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES § 7321. Lie detector tests (a) Offense defined.-A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree if he requires as a condition for employment or continuation of employment that an employe or other individual shall take a polygraph test or any form of a mechanical or electrical lie detector test. (b) Exception.-The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to employes or other individuals in the field of public law enforcement or who dispense or have access to narcotics or dangerous drugs. 1972, Dec. 6, P.L. —, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6, 1973. OREGON REVISED STATUTES 650.225 Requiring polygraph or le detector test prohibited. No person, or agent or representative of such person, shall require, as a condition for employment or continuation of employment, any person or employe to take a polygraph test or any form of a so-called lie detector test. (1963 c.249 $1] (7) Violation of ORS 659.225 is punish- (Subsection (6) enacted as last sentence of 1957 c.548 §1; REVISED CODE WASHINGTON ANNOTATED 49.44.120 Requiring lie detector tests It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or the state of Washington, its political subdivisions or municipal corporations to require any employee or prospective employee to take or be subjected to any lle detector or similar tests as a condition of employment or continued employment: Provided, That this section shall not apply to persons making initial application for employment with any law enforcement agency: Provided further, That this section shall not apply to either the initial application for employment or continued employment of persons who dispense controlled substances as defined in chapter 69.50 RCW, or to persons in sensitive positions directly involving national security, or to persons in the field of public law enforcement who are seeking promotion to a rank of captain or higher. [Added by Laws 1965 ch 1521; Amended by Laws 1973 ch 145 1.] 8 Gonzaga LR 190 (disciplining or discharging police officer for refusal to submit to polygraph test). CJ8 Master and Servant if 14 et seq. 47 Wn LR 73 (right of privacy, and prospective employee-need to restrict polygraph and personality testing). Key Number Digests: Labor Relations Police officer may be required to submit to polygraph test under penalty of dismissal for refusal, when authorities investigating serious and notorious allegations of police misconduct or corruption conclude, in exercise of prudent judgment, that it is reasonably 7. necessary to use device as investigatory Any person violating the provisions of RCW 49.44.120 shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. [Added by Laws 1965 ch 152 2.] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THEFT BY EMPLOYEES IN WORK ORGANIZATIONS A PRELIMINARY FINAL REPORT Research on Organizations and Occupations John P. Clark, Principal Investigator Leonard F. Smith, American Management Associations Philip W. Cooper Peter F. Parilla (The authors also wish to acknowledge the assistance of R. Friedmann, G. Larson, J. Manis, J. Parker, and D. Staal.) Prepared under Grant Number 78-NI-AX-0014 "Crimes in the streets" are not the only form of illegal behavior which negatively affects society. Crimes which occur in the workplace, for example, can have just as serious an impact--on the business community, the workforce and, ultimately, the consumer who must bear the cost of such crimes. Recent estimates by the U.S. Department of Commerce place "employee theft" at the top of the "crimes against business" list. Although dollar estimates of employee theft's seriousness are varied and necessarily approximate, experts agree that significant economic, social and personal costs are attributable to this form of larceny in the workplace. Despite the fact that employee theft is recognized to be a significant national problem, little systematic data are available regarding the phenomenon. In order to obtain a better informed understanding of theft by employees in the workplace, the University of Minnesota's Department of Sociology, assisted by the American Management Associations, New York, has recently completed eighteen months of research on the subject, sponsored by the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. The researchers enlisted the participation of 35 business corporations in the MinneapolisSt. Paul metropolitan area. Specifically, these 35 corporations included nine retail store organizations, ten electronic manufacturing firms, and sixteen general hospitals. These organizations ranged in size from approximately 150 to very large multi-location firms employing in excess of 10,000 workers. The primary goal of this research effort was to develop information upon which to base a more comprehensive understanding of workplace theft. Four specific objectives guided the study. First, how much employee theft was occurring? Second, under what circumstances (both individual and organizational) would employee theft most likely occur? Third, how effective are the actions which management and labor might take to reduce the amount of employee theft in an organization? And fourth, can research on such a sensitive topic be successfully conducted? With the cooperation of the 35 participating organizations and labor and professional associations, two sources of data were utilized. First, a random sample of employees at all occupational levels of each organization was asked to respond to a mailed, self-administered questionnaire. A total of 4,985 employee respondents (50.8% response rate) anonymously provided data on personal and occupational characteristics, job satisfaction, perceptions of theft deterrents and, most importantly, their personal involvement in a broad range of deviant activities, including theft of company property. In addition, there were interviews with more than 180 executives from these same 35 firms who furnished information about a variety of managerial perspectives and practices regarding theft by employees within their respective organizations. Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, the identities of all involved in the research, both the participating companies and employees, have been rigorously kept confidential to insure the anonymity of respondents. In retail stores, the most commonly reported theft activity was the unauthorized use of the employee discount privilege. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents reported that they had misused this privilege at some time, 28% of them admitting that the abuse occurs on a monthly or more frequent basis. Other types of theft, such as taking merchandise or money, were also reported. Twelve percent revealed that they had taken merchandise, and 2% of the respondents indicated they had taken money from the company. Employees from manufacturing firms frequently reported the taking of raw materials or components. Twenty-one percent indicated this kind of theft |