US Codex
C.F.R.
Browse by date

View an earlier version

Latest
Current
Browse all versions by date
Notes

29 C.F.R. §§ 801.10–801.14

5 sections in range

§801.10. Exclusion for public sector employers.

29 C.F.R. § 801.10

(a)
Section 7(a) provides an exclusion from the Act's coverage for the United States Government, any State or local government, or any political subdivision of a State or local government, acting in the capacity of an employer. This exclusion from the Act also extends to any interstate governmental agency.
(b)
The term United States Government means any agency or instrumentality, civilian or military, of the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the Federal Government, and includes independent agencies, wholly-owned government corporations, and nonappropriated fund instrumentalities.
(c)
The term any political subdivision of a State or local government means any entity which is either.
(1)
Created directly by a state or local government, or
(2)
Administered by individuals who are responsible to public officials (i.e., appointed by an elected public official(s) and/or subject to removal procedures for public officials, or to the general electorate.
(d)
This exclusion from the Act applies only to the Federal, State, and local government entity with respect to its own public employees. Except as provided in sections 7 (b) and (c) of the Act, and § 801.11 of the regulations, this exclusion does not extend to contractors or nongovernmental agents of a government entity, nor does it extend to government entities with respect to employees of a private employer with which the government entity has a contractual or other business relationship.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Authority

Authority: Pub. L. 100-347, 102 Stat. 646, 29 U.S.C. 2001-2009; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at sec. 701, 129 Stat 584.

Source

Source: 56 FR 9064, Mar. 4, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

§801.11. Exemption for national defense and security.

29 C.F.R. § 801.11

(a)
The exemptions allowing for the administration of lie detector tests in the following paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section apply only to the Federal Government; they do not allow private employers/contractors to administer such tests.
(b)
Section 7(b)(1) of the Act provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit the administration of any lie detector test by the Federal Government, in the performance of any counterintelligence function, to any expert, consultant or employee of any contractor under contract with the Department of Defense; or with the Department of Energy, in connection with the atomic energy defense activities of such Department.
(c)
Section 7(b)(2)(A) provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit the administration of any lie detector test by the Federal Government, in the performance of any intelligence or counterintelligence function of the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, or the Central Intelligence Agency, to any individual employed by, assigned to, or detailed to any such agency; or any expert or consultant under contract to any such agency; or any employee of a contractor to such agency; or any individual applying for a position in any such agency; or any individual assigned to a space where sensitive cryptologic information is produced, processed, or stored for any such agency.
(d)
Section 7(b)(2)(B) provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit the administration of any lie detector test by the Federal Government, in the performance of any intelligence or counterintelligence function, to 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).
(e)
Section 7(c) provides that nothing in the Act shall be construed to prohibit the administration of any lie detector test by the Federal Government, in the performance of any counterintelligence function, to any 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 a contract with the Bureau.
(f)
Counterintelligence— for purposes of the above paragraphs means information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage and other clandestine intelligence activities, sabotage, terrorist activities, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign governments, or foreign or domestic organizations or persons.
(g)
Lie detector tests of persons described in the above paragraphs will be administered in accordance with applicable Department of Defense directives and regulations, or other regulations and directives governing the use of such tests by the United States Government, as applicable.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Authority

Authority: Pub. L. 100-347, 102 Stat. 646, 29 U.S.C. 2001-2009; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at sec. 701, 129 Stat 584.

Source

Source: 56 FR 9064, Mar. 4, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

§801.12. Exemption for employers conducting investigations of economic loss or injury.

29 C.F.R. § 801.12

(a)
Section 7(d) of the Act provides a limited exemption from the general prohibition on lie detector use in private employment settings for employers conducting ongoing investigations of economic loss or injury to the employer's business. An employer may request an employee, subject to the conditions set forth in sections 8 and 10 of the Act and §§ 801.20, 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, 801.25, 801.26, and 801.35 of this part, to submit to a polygraph test, but no other type of lie detector test, only 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;
(4)
The employer provides the examinee with a statement, in a language understood by the examinee, prior to the test which fully explains with particularity the specific incident or activity being investigated and the basis for testing particular employees and which contains, at a minimum:
(i)
An identification with particularity of the specific economic loss or injury to the business of the employer;
(ii)
A description of the employee's access to the property that is the subject of the investigation;
(iii)
A description in detail of the basis of the employer's reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation; and
(iv)
Signature of a person (other than a polygraph examiner) authorized to legally bind the employer; and
(5)
The employer retains a copy of the statement and proof of service described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section for at least 3 years and makes it available for inspection by the Wage and Hour Division on request. (See § 801.30(a).)
(b)
For the exemption to apply, the condition of an “ongoing investigation” must be met. As used in section 7(d) of the Act, the ongoing investigation must be of a specific incident or activity. Thus, for example, an employer may not request that an employee or employees submit to a polygraph test in an effort to determine whether or not any thefts have occurred. Such random testing by an employer is precluded by the Act. Further, because the exemption is limited to a specific incident or activity, an employer is precluded from using the exemption in situations where the so-called “ongoing investigation” is continuous. For example, the fact that items in inventory are frequently missing from a warehouse would not be a sufficient basis, standing alone, for administering a polygraph test. Even if the employer can establish that unusually high amounts of inventory are missing from the warehouse in a given month, this, in and of itself, would not be a sufficient basis to meet the specific incident requirement. On the other hand, polygraph testing in response to inventory shortages would be permitted where additional evidence is obtained through subsequent investigation of specific items missing through intentional wrongdoing, and a reasonable suspicion that the employee to be polygraphed was involved in the incident under investigation. Administering a polygraph test in circumstances where the missing inventory is merely unspecified, statistical shortages, without identification of a specific incident or activity that produced the inventory shortages and a “reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved,” would amount to little more than a fishing expedition and is prohibited by the Act.
(c)
(1)
(i)
The terms economic loss or injury to the employer's business include both direct and indirect economic loss or injury.
(ii)
Direct loss or injury includes losses or injuries resulting from theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, industrial espionage or sabotage. These examples, cited in the Act, are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive. Another specific incident which would constitute direct economic loss or injury is the misappropriation of confidential or trade secret information.
(iii)
Indirect loss or injury includes the use of an employer's business to commit a crime, such as check-kiting or money laundering. In such cases, the ongoing investigation must be limited to criminal activity that has already occurred, and to use of the employer's business operations (and not simply the use of the premises) for such activity. For example, the use of an employer's vehicles, warehouses, computers or equipment to smuggle or facilitate the importing of illegal substances constitutes an indirect loss or injury to the employer's business operations. Conversely, the mere fact that an illegal act occurs on the employer's premises (such as a drug transaction that takes place in the employer's parking lot or rest room) does not constitute an indirect economic loss or injury to the employer.
(iv)
Indirect loss or injury also includes theft or injury to property of another for which the employer exercises fiduciary, managerial or security responsibility, or where the firm has custody of the property (but not property of other firms to which the employees have access by virtue of the business relationship). For example, if a maintenance employee of the manager of an apartment building steals jewelry from a tenant's apartment, the theft results in an indirect economic loss or injury to the employer because of the manager's management responsibility with respect to the tenant's apartment. A messenger on a delivery of confidential business reports for a client firm who steals the reports causes an indirect economic loss or injury to the messenger service because the messenger service is custodian of the client firm's reports, and therefore is responsible for their security. Similarly, the theft of property protected by a security service employer is considered an economic loss or injury to that employer.
(v)
A theft or injury to a client firm does not constitute an indirect loss or injury to an employer unless that employer has custody of, or management, or security responsibility for, the property of the client that was lost or stolen or injured. For example, a cleaning contractor has no responsibility for the money at a client bank. If money is stolen from the bank by one of the cleaning contractor's employees, the cleaning contractor does not suffer an indirect loss or injury.
(vi)
Indirect loss or injury does not include loss or injury which is merely threatened or potential, e.g., a threatened or potential loss of an advantageous business relationship.
(2)
Economic losses or injuries which are the result of unintentional or lawful conduct would not serve as a basis for the administration of a polygraph test. Thus, apparently unintentional losses or injuries stemming from truck, car, workplace, or other similar type accidents or routine inventory or cash register shortages would not meet the economic loss or injury requirement. Any economic loss incident to lawful union or employee activity also would not satisfy this requirement. It makes no difference that an employer may be obligated to directly or indirectly incur the cost of the incident, as through payment of a “deductible” portion under an insurance policy or higher insurance premiums.
(3)
It is the business of the employer which must suffer the economic loss or injury. Thus, a theft committed by one employee against another employee of the same employer would not satisfy the requirement.
(d)
While nothing in the Act prohibits the use of medical tests to determine the presence of controlled substances or alcohol in bodily fluids, the section 7(d) exemption does not permit the use of a polygraph test to learn whether an employee has used drugs or alcohol, even where such possible use may have contributed to an economic loss to the employer (e.g., an accident involving a company vehicle).
(e)
Section 7(d)(2) provides that, as a condition for the use of the exemption, the employee must have had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation.
(1)
The word access, as used in section 7(d)(2), refers to the opportunity which an employee had to cause, or to aid or abet in causing, the specific economic loss or injury under investigation. The term “access”, thus, includes more than direct or physical contact during the course of employment. For example, as a general matter, all employees working in or with authority to enter a warehouse storage area have “access” to unsecured property in the warehouse. All employees with the combination to a safe have “access” to the property in a locked safe. Employees also have “access” who have the ability to divert possession or otherwise affect the disposition of the property that is the subject of investigation. For example, a bookkeeper in a jewelry store with access to inventory records may aid or abet a clerk who steals an expensive watch by removing the watch from the employer's inventory records. In such a situation, it is clear that the bookkeeper effectively has “access” to the property that is the subject of the investigation.
(2)
As used in section 7(d)(2), property refers to specifically identifiable property, but also includes such things of value as security codes and computer data, and proprietary, financial or technical information, such as trade secrets, which by its availability to competitors or others would cause economic harm to the employer.
(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.
(g)
(1)
As discussed in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, section 7(d)(4) of the Act sets forth what information, at a minimum, must be provided to an employee if the employer wishes to claim the exemption.
(2)
The statement required under paragraph (a)(4) of this section must be received by the employee at least 48 hours, excluding weekend days and holidays, prior to the time of the examination. The statement must set forth the time and date of receipt by the employee and be verified by the employee's signature. This will provide the employee with adequate pre-test notice of the specific incident or activity being investigated and afford the employee sufficient time prior to the test to obtain and consult with legal counsel or an employee representative.
(3)
The statement to be provided to the employee must set forth with particularity the specific incident or activity being investigated and the basis for testing particular employees. Section 7(d)(4)(A) requires specificity beyond the mere assertion of general statements regarding economic loss, employee access, and reasonable suspicion. For example, an employer's assertion that an expensive watch was stolen, and that the employee had access to the watch and is therefore a suspect, would not meet the “with particularity” criterion. If the basis for an employer's requesting an employee (or employees) to take a polygraph test is not articulated with particularity, and reduced to writing, then the standard is not met. The identity of a co-worker or other individual providing information used to establish reasonable suspicion need not be revealed in the statement.
(4)
It is further required that the statement provided to the examinee be signed by the employer, or an employee or other representative of the employer with authority to legally bind the employer. The person signing the statement must not be a polygraph examiner unless the examiner is acting solely in the capacity of an employer with respect to his or her own employees and does not conduct the examination. The standard would not be met, and the exemption would not apply if the person signing the statement is not authorized to legally bind the employer.
(h)
Polygraph tests administered pursuant to this exemption are subject to the limitations set forth in sections 8 and 10 of the Act, as discussed in §§ 801.20, 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, 801.25, 801.26, and 801.35 of this part. As provided in these sections, the exemption will apply only if certain requirements are met. Failure to satisfy any of the specified requirements nullifies the statutory authority for polygraph test administration and may subject the employer to the assessment of civil money penalties and other remedial actions, as provided for in section 6 of the Act (see subpart E, § 801.42 of this part). The administration of such tests is also subject to State or local laws, or collective bargaining agreements, which may either prohibit lie detector tests, or contain more restrictive provisions with respect to polygraph testing.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Authority

Authority: Pub. L. 100-347, 102 Stat. 646, 29 U.S.C. 2001-2009; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at sec. 701, 129 Stat 584.

Source

Source: 56 FR 9064, Mar. 4, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

§801.13. Exemption of employers authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances.

29 C.F.R. § 801.13

(a)
Section 7(f) provides an exemption from the Act's general prohibition regarding the use of polygraph tests for employers authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance listed in schedule I, II, III, or IV of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812). This exemption permits the administration of polygraph tests, subject to the conditions set forth in sections 8 and 10 of the Act and §§ 801.21, 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, 801.25, 801.26, and 801.35 of this part, to:
(1)
A prospective employee who would have direct access to the manufacture, storage, distribution, or sale of any such controlled substance; or
(2)
A current employee if the following conditions are met—
(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.
(b)
(1)
The terms manufacture, distribute, distribution, dispense, storage, and sale, for the purposes of this exemption, are construed within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812 et seq.), as administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), U.S. Department of Justice.
(2)
The exemption in section 7(f) of the Act applies only to employers who are authorized by DEA to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance. Section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) requires every person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substance to register with the Attorney General (i.e., with DEA). Common or contract carriers and warehouses whose possession of the controlled substance is in the usual course of their business or employment are not required to register. Since this exemption is intended to apply only to employees and prospective employees of persons or entities registered with DEA, and is not intended to apply to truck drivers employed by persons or entities who are not so registered, it has no application to employees of common or contract carriers or public warehouses. Truck drivers and warehouse employees of the persons or entities registered with DEA and authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense controlled substances, are within the scope of the exemption where they have direct access or access to the controlled substances, as discussed below.
(c)
In order for a polygraph examination to be performed, section 7(f) of the Act requires that a prospective employee have “direct access” to the controlled substance(s) manufactured, dispensed, or distributed by the employer. Where a current employee is to be tested as a part of an ongoing investigation, section 7(f) requires that the employee have “access” to the person or property that is the subject of the investigation.
(1)
A prospective employee would have “direct access” if the position being applied for has responsibilities which include contact with or which affect the disposition of a controlled substance, including participation in the process of obtaining, dispensing, or otherwise distributing a controlled substance. This includes contact or direct involvement in the manufacture, storage, testing, distribution, sale or dispensing of a controlled substance and may include, for example, packaging, repackaging, ordering, licensing, shipping, receiving, taking inventory, providing security, prescribing, and handling of a controlled substance. A prospective employee would have “direct access” if the described job duties would give such person access to the products in question, whether such employee would be in physical proximity to controlled substances or engaged in activity which would permit the employee to divert such substances to his or her possession.
(2)
A current employee would have “access” within the meaning of section 7(f) if the employee had access to the specific person or property which is the subject of the on-going investigation, as discussed in § 801.12(e) of this part. Thus, to test a current employee, the employee need not have had “direct” access to the controlled substance, but may have had only infrequent, random, or opportunistic access. Such access would be sufficient to test the employee if the employee could have caused, or could have aided or abetted in causing, the loss of the specific property which is the subject of the investigation. For example, a maintenance worker in a drug warehouse, whose job duties include the cleaning of areas where the controlled substances which are the subject of the investigation were present, but whose job duties do not include the handling of controlled substances, would be deemed to have “access”, but normally not “direct access”, to the controlled substances. On the other hand, a drug warehouse truck loader, whose job duties include the handling of outgoing shipment orders which contain controlled substances, would have “direct access” to such controlled substances. A pharmacy department in a supermarket is another common situation which is useful in illustrating the distinction between “direct access” and “access”. Store personnel receiving pharmaceutical orders, i.e., the pharmacist, pharmacy intern, and other such employees working in the pharmacy department, would ordinarily have “direct access” to controlled substances. Other store personnel whose job duties and responsibilities do not include the handling of controlled substances but who had occasion to enter the pharmacy department where the controlled substances which are the subject of the investigation were stored, such as maintenance personnel or pharmacy cashiers, would have “access”. Certain other store personnel whose job duties do not permit or require entrance into the pharmacy department for any reason, such as produce or meat clerks, checkout cashiers, or baggers, would not ordinarily have “access.” However, any current employee, regardless of described job duties, may be polygraphed if the employer's investigation of criminal or other misconduct discloses that such employee in fact took action to obtain “access” to the person or property that is the subject of the investigation—e.g., by actually entering the drug storage area in violation of company rules. In the case of “direct access”, the prospective employee's access to controlled substances would be as a part of the manufacturing, dispensing or distribution process, while a current employee's “access” to the controlled substances which are the subject of the investigation need only be opportunistic.
(d)
The term prospective employee, for the purposes of this section, includes a current employee who presently holds a position which does not entail direct access to controlled substances, and therefore is outside the scope of the exemption's provisions for preemployment polygraph testing, provided the employee has applied for and is being considered for transfer or promotion to another position which entails such direct access. For example, an office secretary may apply for promotion to a position in the vault or cage areas of a drug warehouse, where controlled substances are kept. In such a situation, the current employee would be deemed a “prospective employee” for the purposes of this exemption, and thus could be subject to preemployment polygraph screening, prior to such a change in position. However, any adverse action which is based in part on a polygraph test against a current employee who is considered a “prospective employee” for purposes of this section may be taken only with respect to the prospective position and may not affect the employee's employment in the current position.
(e)
Section 7(f) of the Act makes no specific reference to a requirement that employers provide current employees with a written statement prior to polygraph testing. Thus, employers to whom this exemption is available are not required to furnish a written statement such as that specified in section 7(d) of the Act and § 801.12(a)(4) of this part.
(f)
For the section 7(f) exemption to apply, the polygraph testing of current employees must be 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.
(1)
Current employees may only be administered polygraph tests in connection with an ongoing investigation of criminal or other misconduct, relating to a specific incident or activity, or potential incident or activity. Thus, an employer is precluded from using the exemption in connection with continuing investigations or on a random basis to determine if thefts are occurring. However, unlike the exemption in section 7(d) of the Act for employers conducting ongoing investigations of economic loss or injury, the section 7(f) exemption includes ongoing investigations of misconduct involving potential drug losses. Nor does the latter exemption include the requirement for “reasonable suspicion” contained in the section 7(d) exemption. Thus, a drug store employer is permitted to polygraph all current employees who have access to a controlled substance stolen from the inventory, or where there is evidence that such a theft is planned. Polygraph testing based on an inventory shortage of the drug during a particular accounting period would not be permitted unless there is extrinsic evidence of misconduct.
(2)
In addition, the test must be administered in connection with loss or injury, or potential loss or injury, to the manufacture, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled substance.
(i)
Retail drugstores and wholesale drug warehouses typically carry inventory of so-called health and beauty aids, cosmetics, over-the-counter drugs, and a variety of other similar products, in addition to their product lines of controlled drugs. The noncontrolled products usually constitute the majority of such firms' sales volumes. An economic loss or injury related to such noncontrolled substances would not constitute a basis of applicability of the section 7(f) exemption. For example, an investigation into the theft of a gross of cosmetic products could not be a basis for polygraph testing under section 7(f), but the theft of a container of valium could be.
(ii)
Polygraph testing, with respect to an ongoing investigation concerning products other than controlled substances might be initiated under section 7(d) of the Act and § 801.12 of this part. However, the exemption in section 7(f) of the Act and this section is limited solely to losses or injury associated with controlled substances.
(g)
Polygraph tests administered pursuant to this exemption are subject to the limitations set forth in sections 8 and 10 of the Act, as discussed in §§ 801.21, 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, 801.25, 801.26, and 801.35 of this part. As provided in these sections, the exemption will apply only if certain requirements are met. Failure to satisfy any of the specified requirements nullifies the statutory authority for polygraph test administration and may subject the employer to the assessment of civil money penalties and other remedial actions, as provided for in section 6 of the Act (see subpart E, § 801.40 of this part). The administration of such tests is also subject to State or local laws, or collective bargaining agreements, which may either prohibit lie detector tests, or contain more restrictive provisions with respect to polygraph testing.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Amendments

[56 FR 9064, Mar. 4, 1991; 56 FR 14469, Apr. 10, 1991]

Authority

Authority: Pub. L. 100-347, 102 Stat. 646, 29 U.S.C. 2001-2009; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at sec. 701, 129 Stat 584.

Source

Source: 56 FR 9064, Mar. 4, 1991, unless otherwise noted.

Amendments

[56 FR 9064, Mar. 4, 1991; 56 FR 14469, Apr. 10, 1991]

§801.14. Exemption for employers providing security services.

29 C.F.R. § 801.14

(a)
Section 7(e) of the Act provides an exemption from the general prohibition against polygraph tests for certain armored car, security alarm, and security guard employers. Subject to the conditions set forth in sections 8 and 10 of the Act and §§ 801.21, 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, 801.25, 801.26, and 801.35 of this part, section 7(e) permits the use of polygraph tests on certain prospective employees provided that such employers have as their primary business purpose the providing of armored car personnel, personnel engaged in the design, installation, and maintenance of security alarm systems, or other uniformed or plainclothes security personnel; and provided the employer's function includes protection of:
(1)
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, such as—
(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
(2)
Currency, negotiable securities, precious commodities or instruments, or proprietary information.
(b)
(1)
Section 7(e) permits the administration of polygraph tests only to prospective employees. However, security service employers may administer polygraph tests to current employees in connection with an ongoing investigation, subject to the conditions of section 7(d) of the Act and § 801.12 of this part.
(2)
The term prospective employee generally refers to an individual who is not currently employed by and who is being considered for employment by an employer. However, the term “prospective employee” also includes current employees under circumstances similar to those discussed in paragraph (d) of § 801.13 of this part, i.e., if the employee was initially hired for a position which was not within the exemption provided by section 7(e) of the Act, and subsequently applies for, and is under consideration for, transfer to a position for which pre-employment testing is permitted. Thus, for example, a security guard may be hired for a job outside the scope of the exemption's provisions for pre-employment polygraph testing, such as a position at a supermarket. If subsequently this guard is under consideration for transfer or promotion to a job at a nuclear power plant, this currently-employed individual would be considered to be a “prospective employee” for purposes of this exemption, prior to such proposed transfer or promotion. However, any adverse action which is based in part on a polygraph test against a current employee who is considered to be a “prospective employee” for purposes of this exemption may be taken only with respect to the prospective position and may not affect the employee's employment in the current position.
(c)
Section 7(e) applies to certain private employers 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. Thus, the exemption is limited to firms primarily in the business of providing such security services, and does not apply to firms primarily in some other business who employ their own security personnel. (For example, a utility company which employs its own security personnel could not qualify.) In the case of diversified firms, the term primary business purpose shall mean that at least 50% of the employer's annual dollar volume of business is derived from the provision of the types of security services specifically identified in section 7(e). Where a parent corporation includes a subsidiary corporation engaged in providing security services, the annual dollar volume of business test is applied to the legal entity (or entities) which is the employer, i.e., the subsidiary corporation, not the parent corporation.
(d)
(1)
As used in section 7(e)(1)(A), the terms 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 include protection of electric or nuclear power plants, public water supply facilities, radioactive or other toxic waste shipments or storage, and public transportation. These examples are intended to be illustrative, and not exhaustive. However, the types of “facilities, materials, or operations” within the scope of the exemption are not to be construed so broadly as to include low priority or minor security interests. The “facilities, materials, or operations” in question consist only of those having a “significant impact” on public health or safety, or national security. However, the “facilities, materials, or operations” may be either privately or publicly owned.
(2)
The specific “facilities, materials, or operations” contemplated by this exemption include those against which acts of sabotage, espionage, terrorism, or other hostile, destructive, or illegal acts could significantly impact on the general public's safety or health, or national security. In addition to the specific examples set forth in the Act and in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the terms would include:
(i)
Facilities, materials, and operations owned or leased by Federal, State, or local governments, including instrumentalities or interstate agencies thereof, for which an authorized public official has determined that a need for security exists, as evidenced by the establishment of security requirements utilizing private armored car, security alarm system, or uniformed or plainclothes security personnel, or a combination thereof. Examples of such facilities, materials and operations include:
(A)
Government office buildings;
(B)
Prisons and correction facilities;
(C)
Public schools;
(D)
Public libraries;
(E)
Water supply;
(F)
Military reservations, installations, posts, camps, arsenals, laboratories, Government-owned and contractor operated (GOCO) or Government-owned and Government-operated (GOGO) industrial plants, and other similar facilities subject to the custody, jurisdiction, or administration of any Department of Defense (DOD) component;
(ii)
Commercial and industrial assets and operations which—
(A)
Are protected pursuant to security requirements established in contracts with the United States or other directives by a Federal agency (such as those of defense contractors and researchers), including factories, plants, buildings, or structures used for researching, designing, testing, manufacturing, producing, processing, repairing, assembling, storing, or distributing products or components related to the national defense; or
(B)
Are protected pursuant to security requirements imposed on registrants under the Controlled Substances Act; or
(C)
Would pose a serious threat to public health or safety in the event of a breach of security (this would include, for example, a plant engaged in the manufacture or processing of hazardous materials or chemicals but would not include a plant engaged in the manufacture of shoes);
(iii)
Public and private energy and precious mineral facilities, supplies, and reserves, including—
(A)
Public or private power plants and utilities;
(B)
Oil or gas refineries and storage facilities;
(C)
Strategic petroleum reserves; and
(D)
Major dams, such as those which provide hydroelectric power;
(iv)
Major public or private transportation and communication facilities and operations, including—
(A)
Airports;
(B)
Train terminals, depots, and switching and control facilities;
(C)
Major bridges and tunnels;
(D)
Communications centers, such as receiving and transmission centers, and control centers;
(E)
Transmission and receiving operations for radio, television, and satellite signals; and
(F)
Network computer systems containing data important to public health and safety or national security;
(v)
The Federal Reserve System and stock and commodity exchanges;
(vi)
Hospitals and health research facilities;
(vii)
Large public events, such as political conventions and major parades, concerts, and sporting events; and
(viii)
Large enclosed shopping centers (malls).
(3)
If an employer believes that “facilities, materials, or operations” which are not listed in this subsection fall within the contemplated purview of this exemption, a request for a ruling may be filed with the Administrator. A ruling that such “facilities, materials, or operations” are included within this exemption must be obtained prior to the administration of a polygraph test or any other action prohibited by section 3 of the Act. It is not possible to exhaustively account for all “facilities, materials, or operations” which fall within the purview of section 7(e) (1) (A). While it is likely that additional entities may fall within the exemption's scope, any such “facilities, materials, or operations” must meet the “significant impact” test. Thus, “facilities, materials, or operations” which would be of vital importance during periods of war or civil emergency, or whose sabotage would greatly affect the public health or safety, could fall within the scope of the term “significant impact”.
(e)
(1)
Section 7(e)(1)(B) of the Act extends the exemption to firms whose function includes protection of “currency, negotiable securities, precious commodities or instruments, or proprietary information”. These terms collectively are construed to include assets primarily handled by financial institutions such as banks, credit unions, savings and loan institutions, stock and commodity exchanges, brokers, or security dealers.
(2)
The terms “currency, negotiable securities, precious commodities or instruments or proprietary information” refer to assets which are typically handled by, protected for and transported between and among commercial and financial institutions. Services provided by the armored car industry are thus clearly within the scope of the exemption, as are security alarm and security guard services provided to financial and similar institutions of the type referred to above. Also included are the cash assets handled by casinos, racetracks, lotteries, or other businesses where the cash constitutes the inventory or stock in trade. Similarly, security services provided to businesses engaged in the sale or exchange of precious commodities such as gold, silver, or diamonds, including jewelry stores that stock such precious commodities prior to transformation into pieces of jewelry, are also included. The term “proprietary information” generally refers to business assets such as trade secrets, manufacturing processes, research and development data, and cost/pricing data. Security alarm or guard services provided to protect the premises of private homes, or businesses not primarily engaged in handling, trading, transferring, or storing currency, negotiable securities, precious commodities or instruments, or proprietary information, on the other hand, are normally outside the scope of the exemption. This is true even though such places may physically house some such assets. However, where such security alarm or guard service is specifically designed or limited to the protection of the types of assets identified above, whether located in businesses or residences, or elsewhere, the security services provided are within the scope of the exemption. For example, a security system specially designed to protect diamonds kept in a home vault of a diamond merchant would be within the exemption. However, a security system installed generally to protect the premises of the home of the same merchant would not be within the exemption. A guard sent to a client firm to secure a restricted office in which only proprietary research data is developed and stored is within the scope of the exemption. Another guard sent to the same firm to protect the building entrance from unwanted intruders is not within the scope of the exemption even though the building contains the restricted room in which the proprietary research data is developed and stored, since the security system is not specifically designed to protect the proprietary information.
(f)
An employer who falls within the scope of the exemption is one “whose function includes” protection of “facilities, materials, or operations”, discussed in paragraph (d) of this section or of “currency, negotiable securities, precious commodities or instruments, or proprietary information” discussed in paragraph (e) of this section. Thus, assuming that the employer has met the “primary business purpose” test, as set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, the employer's operations then must simply “include” protection of at least one of the facilities within the scope of the exemption.
(g)
(1)
Section 7(e)(2) provides that the exemption shall not apply if a polygraph test is administered to a prospective employee who would not be employed to protect the “facilities, materials, operations, or assets” referred to in section 7(e)(1) of the Act, and discussed in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. Thus, while the exemption applies to employers whose function “includes” protection of certain facilities, employers would not be permitted to administer polygraph tests to prospective employees who are not being employed to protect such functions.
(2)
The phrase “employed to protect” in section 7(e)(2) has reference to a wide spectrum of prospective employees in the security industry, and includes any job applicant who would likely protect the security of any qualifying “facilities, materials, operations, or assets.”
(3)
In many cases, it will be readily apparent that certain positions within security companies would, by virtue of the individual's official job duties, entail “protection”. For example, armored car drivers and guards, security guards, and alarm system installers and maintenance personnel all would be employed to protect in the most direct and literal sense of the term.
(4)
The scope of the exemption is not limited, however, to those security personnel having direct, physical access to the facilities being protected. Various support personnel may also, as a part of their job duties, have access to the process of providing security services due to the position's exposure to knowledge of security plans and operations, employee schedules, delivery schedules, and other such activities. Where a position entails the opportunity to cause or participate in a breach of security, an employee to be hired for the position would also be deemed to be “employed to protect” the facility.
(i)
For example, in the armored car industry, the duties of personnel other than guards and drivers may include taking customer orders for currency and commodity transfers, issuing security badges to guards, coordinating routes of travel and times for pick-up and delivery, issuing access codes to customers, route planning and other sensitive responsibilities. Similarly, in the security alarm industry, several types of employees would have access to the process of providing security services, such as designers of security systems, system monitors, service technicians, and billing clerks (where they review the system design drawings to ensure proper customer billing). In the security industry, generally, administrative employees may have access to customer accounts, schedules, information relating to alarm system failures, and other security information, such as security employee absences due to illness that create “holes” in a security plan. Employees of this type are a part of the overall security services provided by the employer. Such employees possess the ability to affect, on an opportunistic basis, the security of protected operations, by virtue of the knowledge gained through their job duties.
(ii)
On the other hand, there are certainly some types of employees in the security industry who “would not be employed to protect” the facilities or assets within the purview of the exemption, and who would not be in the process of providing exempt security services. For example, custodial and maintenance employees typically would not have access, either directly or indirectly as a part of their job duties, to the operations or clients of the employer. Any employee whose “access” to secured areas or to sensitive information is on a controlled basis, such as by escort, would also be outside the scope of the exemption. In cases where security service companies also provide janitorial, food and beverage, or other services unrelated to security, the exemption would clearly not extend to any employee considered for employment in such activity.
(5)
The phrase “employed to protect” includes any job applicant who, if not hired specifically to protect the listed facilities or assets, would likely be so employed, as through a systematic assignment process, such as rotation of work assignments or selection from a pool of available employees, even if selection for such work is unpredictable or infrequent. A prospective employee whose job assignment to perform qualifying protective functions would be made by selection from a pool of available employees (all of whom have an equal chance of being selected), or an employee who is to be rotated through different job assignments which include some qualifying protective functions, is included within the exemption. However, if there is only a remote possibility that a prospective employee, if hired, would perform exempt protective functions, such as on an emergency basis, or if a prospective employee by reason of his or her position, qualifications, or level of experience or for other reasons, would when hired, not ordinarily be assigned to protect qualifying facilities, such an employee would be deemed to have not been hired to protect such facilities and would be excluded from the exemption.
(h)
Polygraph tests administered pursuant to this exemption are subject to the limitations set forth in sections 8 and 10 of the Act, as discussed in §§ 801.21, 801.22, 801.23, 801.24, 801.25, 801.26, and 801.35 of this part. As provided in these sections, the exemption will apply only if certain requirements are met. Failure to satisfy any of the specified requirements nullifies the statutory authority for polygraph test administration and may subject the employer to the assessment of civil money penalties and other remedial actions, as provided for in section 6 of the Act (see subpart E, § 801.42 of this part). The administration of such tests is also subject to State or local laws, or collective bargaining agreements, which may either prohibit lie detectors test, or contain more restrictive provisions with respect to polygraph testing.
Notes, amendments, and revision history

Authority

Authority: Pub. L. 100-347, 102 Stat. 646, 29 U.S.C. 2001-2009; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note (Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990); Pub. L. 114-74 at sec. 701, 129 Stat 584.

Source

Source: 56 FR 9064, Mar. 4, 1991, unless otherwise noted.