Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)

Legal Implications of John’s Situation

For the purposes of this essay, it is supposed that the former classmate now residing in New York goes by the name of John. John recently got a call from his boss informing him that he had been laid off. John’s refusal to take a lie-detector test regarding some drugs discovered in his locker at work is one of the main reasons he is losing his job. The legal implications of John’s situation are highlighted in the debate that follows.

Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA)

First of all, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) forbids employers from subjecting any of their workers to lie detector tests while they are on the job. (Kurtz & Wells, 1989). The basis on which John’s employer is firing John is also flawed as this law further prohibits the employer from requesting an employee to take a lie detector test. John did not commit any crime, therefore, by refusing to take the polygraph test. However, he needs to provide more information as the EPPA provides provisions, albeit with restrictions, for polygraph tests to be administered to employees in private firms who suspected of involvement in workplace incidents which the employer can prove to have cost him/her (Kurtz & Wells, 1989).

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act)

Secondly, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), provides that an employer such as John’s (with at least 100 employees), should give an advance notice of 60 days in case of a planned mass layoff (Addison & Blackburn, 1994). John’s employer is in contravention of the WARN Act by laying him off effective immediately without an advance notice to ensure that he adjusts to losing the job, obtains a new job or retrains for another job. The layoff that John’s employer is executing involves more than 50 people losing their jobs within a period of fewer than thirty days. Therefore, this scenario squarely lies within the jurisdiction of WARN Act and thus the employer needs to provide a 60 day advance notice period to the planned layoff. The termination of employment in John’s case is, therefore, illegal.

Privacy Issues and Drug-Free Workplace

Moreover, the access to John’s locker while he was away on vacation may raise serious legal issues concerning employees’ privacy at the workplace. It is advisable that John finds out what privacy laws apply to him as privacy laws vary greatly from state to state. However, drug and alcohol testing policies by employees often lead to questions regarding the privacy of employees arising (Blanchard, 2016). John’s case is no different and he needs to examine whether it was legal for the employer to search through his locker while he was away. The public policy favoring a drug and alcohol-free workplace is by far the most intrusive invasion of employee privacy. These public policies advocate for employer drug and alcohol testing for employees and job applicants to minimize costs associated with drug and alcohol abuse in the workplace (Brown, Bain & Freeman, 2008).

However, John was in contravention of the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. Most of the private sector employees are covered by this law in a bid to promote a drug-free working environment. John’s actions of having drugs at the workplace are also contravening the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). It is important to note that most accidents and illnesses are recorded among drug and alcohol (ab)users (Perkel, 1972). The OSH Act was implemented in a bid to promote the Health and Safety of all workers at the job place. The possession of drugs by John at the workplace can highly affect the health and safety of him and his fellow workmates.

References

Addison, J. T., & Blackburn, M. L. (1994). The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act: Effects on notice provision. ILR Review, 47(4), 650.

Blanchard, O. (2016). Employee Privacy In Light Of New Technologies: An Ethical and Strategic Framework. Cornell HR Review, 6-10.

Brown, S. K., Bain, P., & Freeman, M. (2008). Employee perceptions of alcohol and drug policy effectiveness: Policy features, concerns about drug testing, and the key role of preventative measures. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 15(2), 145-160.

Kurtz, J. M., & Wells, W. R. (1989). The Employee Polygraph Protection Act: The End of Lie Detector Use in Employment Decisions? Journal of Small Business Management, 27(4), 76-80.

Perkel, G. (1972). A Labor View of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Labor Law Journal, 23(8), 511-517.