Employee Polygraphs
System
5,885 Posts
We are a commercial bank. One of our drive-thru
facilities is missing a lot of money from a customer's
deposit. We would like to polygraph an employee who had
access to the deposit--but we're struggling with the
definition of "reasonable suspicion that an employee was
involved in the incident" as stated in sec. 2006 of the
exemptions to the EPPA. Does anyone have experience
determining what we constitutes "reasonable
suspicion?"
facilities is missing a lot of money from a customer's
deposit. We would like to polygraph an employee who had
access to the deposit--but we're struggling with the
definition of "reasonable suspicion that an employee was
involved in the incident" as stated in sec. 2006 of the
exemptions to the EPPA. Does anyone have experience
determining what we constitutes "reasonable
suspicion?"
Comments
f)(1) As used in section 7(d)(3), the term reasonable suspicion
refers to an observable, articulable basis in fact which indicates that
a particular employee was involved in, or responsible for, an economic
loss. Access in the sense of possible or potential opportunity, standing
alone, does not constitute a basis for ``reasonable suspicion''.
Information from a co-worker, or an employee's behavior, demeanor, or
conduct may be factors in the basis for reasonable suspicion. Likewise,
inconsistencies between facts, claims, or statements that surface during
an investigation can serve as a sufficient basis for reasonable
suspicion. While access or opportunity, standing alone, does not
constitute a basis for reasonable suspicion, 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.
(2) For example, in an investigation of a theft of an expensive
piece of jewelry, an employee authorized to open the establishment's
safe no earlier than 9 a.m., in order to place the jewelry in a window
display case, is observed opening the safe at 7:30 a.m. In such a
situation, the opening of the safe by the employee one and one-half
hours prior to the specified time may serve as the basis for reasonable
suspicion. On the other hand, in the example given, if the employer
asked the employee to bring the piece of jewelry to his or her office at
7:30 a.m., and the employee then opened the safe and reported the
jewelry missing, such access, standing alone, would not constitute a
basis for reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the
incident unless access to the safe was limited solely to the employee.
If no one other than the employee possessed the combination to the safe,
and all other possible explanations for the loss are ruled out, such as
a break-in, the employer may formulate a basis for reasonable suspicion
based on sole access by one employee.
(3) The employer has the burden of establishing that the specific
individual or individuals to be tested are ``reasonably suspected'' of
involvement in the specific economic loss or injury for the requirement
in section 7(d)(3) to be met.
I guess in your case the responsibility for the loss would rest on who was responsible for the deposit, etc. and the circumstances of the missing money. You could always call the police in to question those who had access to the funds. This may be a better way to handle it than trying to polygraph everyone.
Does any other employee cover the window?