Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · U.S. Code · Title 29 - LABOR · CHAPTER 22— EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION · § 2006

§ 2006. Exemptions

1,235 words·~6 min read·/usc/title-29/section-2006

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(a)No application to governmental employers This chapter shall not apply with respect to the United States Government, any State or local government, or any political subdivision of a State or local government.
(b)National defense and security exemption
(1)National defense Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the administration, by the Federal Government, in the performance of any counterintelligence function, of any lie detector test to—
(A)any expert or consultant under contract to the Department of Defense or any employee of any contractor of such Department; or
(B)any expert or consultant under contract with the Department of Energy in connection with the atomic energy defense activities of such Department or any employee of any contractor of such Department in connection with such activities.
(2)Security Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the administration, by the Federal Government, in the performance of any intelligence or counterintelligence function, of any lie detector test to—
(i)any individual employed by, assigned to, or detailed to, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or the Central Intelligence Agency,
(ii)any expert or consultant under contract to any such agency,
(iii)any employee of a contractor to any such agency,
(iv)any individual applying for a position in any such agency, or
(v)any individual assigned to a space where sensitive cryptologic information is produced, processed, or stored for any such agency; or
(B)any expert, or consultant (or employee of such expert or consultant) under contract with any Federal Government department, agency, or program whose duties involve access to information that has been classified at the level of top secret or designated as being within a special access program under section 4.2(a) of Executive Order 12356 (or a successor Executive order).
(c)FBI contractors exemption Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit the administration, by the Federal Government, in the performance of any counterintelligence function, of any lie detector test to an employee of a contractor of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice who is engaged in the performance of any work under the contract with such Bureau.
(d)Limited exemption for ongoing investigations Subject to sections 2007 and 2009 of this title, this chapter shall not prohibit an employer from requesting an employee to submit to a polygraph test if—
(1)the test is administered in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer’s business, such as theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, or an act of unlawful industrial espionage or sabotage;
(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—
(A)sets forth with particularity the specific incident or activity being investigated and the basis for testing particular employees,
(B)is signed by a person (other than a polygraph examiner) authorized to legally bind the employer,
(C)is retained by the employer for at least 3 years, and
(D)contains at a minimum—
(i)an identification of the specific economic loss or injury to the business of the employer,
(ii)a statement indicating that the employee had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation, and
(iii)a statement describing the basis of the employer’s reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation.
(e)Exemption for security services
(1)In general Subject to paragraph
(2)and sections 2007 and 2009 of this title, this chapter shall not prohibit the use of polygraph tests on prospective employees by any private employer whose primary business purpose consists of providing armored car personnel, personnel engaged in the design, installation, and maintenance of security alarm systems, or other uniformed or plainclothes security personnel and whose function includes protection of—
(A)facilities, materials, or operations having a significant impact on the health or safety of any State or political subdivision thereof, or the national security of the United States, as determined under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary within 90 days after June 27, 1988, including—
(i)facilities engaged in the production, transmission, or distribution of electric or nuclear power,
(ii)public water supply facilities,
(iii)shipments or storage of radioactive or other toxic waste materials, and
(iv)public transportation, or
(B)currency, negotiable securities, precious commodities or instruments, or proprietary information.
(2)Access The exemption provided under this subsection shall not apply if the test is administered to a prospective employee who would not be employed to protect facilities, materials, operations, or assets referred to in paragraph (1).
(f)Exemption for drug security, drug theft, or drug diversion investigations
(1)In general Subject to paragraph
(2)and sections 2007 and 2009 of this title, this chapter shall not prohibit the use of a polygraph test by any employer authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance listed in schedule I, II, III, or IV of section 812 of title 21.
(2)Access The exemption provided under this subsection shall apply—
(A)if the test is administered to a prospective employee who would have direct access to the manufacture, storage, distribution, or sale of any such controlled substance; or
(B)in the case of a test administered to a current employee, if—
(i)the test is administered in connection with an ongoing investigation of criminal or other misconduct involving, or potentially involving, loss or injury to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of any such controlled substance by such employer, and
(ii)the employee had access to the person or property that is the subject of the investigation.
(Pub. L. 100–347, § 7, June 27, 1988, 102 Stat. 648; Pub. L. 103–359, title V, § 501(n), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3430; Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XI, § 1122(b)(3), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2687; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title IX, § 931(b)(3), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4575.)
Connections23 cite this · traces to 4
Cited by 23 sections · top 17
statutes-at-large
statute-compilations
12 references not yet in our index
  • Pub. L. 100–347, § 7
  • 102 Stat. 648
  • Pub. L. 103–359, title V, § 501(n)
  • 108 Stat. 3430
  • Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XI, § 1122(b)(3)
  • 110 Stat. 2687
  • Pub. L. 110–417
  • 122 Stat. 4575
  • Pub. L. 104–201
  • Pub. L. 103–359
  • section 1124 of Pub. L. 104–201
  • section 11 of Pub. L. 100–347
Citation graph
cites case law
§ 2006
Exemptions
Fed. Reg.×8
U.S.C.×7
Stat.×4
Bills×3
Stat. Comp.×1
Pub. L.Pub. L. 100–347, § 7
Stat.102 Stat. 648
Pub. L.Pub. L. 103–359, title V, § 501(n)
Stat.108 Stat. 3430
Pub. L.Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title XI, § 1122(b)(3)
Cites 16 · showing 9Cited by 23 across 5 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.