Polygraph institute sued for divulging too much
Institute administered an overly intrusive test on behalf of its client, the employer, says the plaintiff
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) is suing a polygraph institute on behalf an individual who, it claims, was wrongfully denied a job.
The suit alleges that the institute administered an overly intrusive test on behalf of its client, the employer. It supplied the employer with intimate information about the candidate that it had no business releasing, the plaintiff charges.
The NIS 195,000 suit, submitted to the Tel Aviv Labor Court, claims that the employer published a wanted ad in early 2006 looking for a sales manager. The plaintiff, well experienced in this area, easily passed the initial interview stages. The CEO had even informed him that he was suitable for the company and only needed a credibility test from the polygraph institute.
The institute asked the candidate about various areas of his life. According to the suit, the questions were invasive and, in some cases, irrelevant to the job.
However, because it was a credibility test, the plaintiff agreed to supply confidential information.
The plaintiff also had to sign a declaration that he had taken the test "of his own free will," the suit continued. The plaintiff asserts he did not take it freely but rather because he was required to do so by the employer.
After the test, the plaintiff began training at the company with the person he was scheduled to replace, and was even introduced as the new sales manager. However, the CEO called him that evening to tell him he could not hire him in light of his conversation with the polygraph institute.
"There are issues, like your release from reserve duty, which don't match the company's values and with the personal worldview of a manager," the CEO allegedly said.
An ACRI attorney said the decision not to hire the plaintiff violated the equal job opportunity law and was based on discriminatory and improper criteria. "Not serving in or release from reserve duty are irrelevant criteria for the purposes of assessing the talent or suitability of a candidate for a job placement," the suit says.