<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Employer sued for using polygraph results</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cfosnafu.com/employer-sued-for-using-polygraph-results/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cfosnafu.com/employer-sued-for-using-polygraph-results/</link>
	<description>Some days it should be legal to keep two sets of books</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:39:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bob</title>
		<link>http://www.cfosnafu.com/employer-sued-for-using-polygraph-results/comment-page-1/#comment-5102</link>
		<dc:creator>Bob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cfosnafu.com/?p=878#comment-5102</guid>
		<description>This makes sense.  A bank teller failes 2 polygraph exams after an attempted bank robbery and the bank is not allowed to fire the person?  But the law does have exceptions which I believe cover this bank.  I think all three of these excemptions would apply in this case.

(1) the test is administered in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer&#039;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;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This makes sense.  A bank teller failes 2 polygraph exams after an attempted bank robbery and the bank is not allowed to fire the person?  But the law does have exceptions which I believe cover this bank.  I think all three of these excemptions would apply in this case.</p>
<p>(1) the test is administered in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer&#8217;s business, such as theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, or an act of unlawful industrial espionage or sabotage;<br />
(2) the employee had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation;<br />
(3) the employer has a reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

