Rothstein, Mark A.

English

Pepperdine Digital Commons

Journal of the National Association of Administrative LawJudiciaryVolume 9 | Issue 1 Article 33-15-1989Should Employers Use Polygraphs to ScreenProspective Employees?Mark A. RothsteinFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naaljPart of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Labor and Employment Law Commons,and the Law and Society CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inJournal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary by an authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For moreinformation, please contact Kevin.Miller3@pepperdine.edu.Recommended CitationMark A. Rothstein, Should Employers Use Polygraphs to Screen Prospective Employees?, 9 J. Nat’l Ass’n Admin. L. Judges. (1989)available at http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/naalj/vol9/iss1/3SHOULD EMPLOYERS USE POLYGRAPHSTO SCREEN PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES? -Joe Smith applies for the job of janitor at a day carecenter. At a preemployment polygraph examination he is asked thefollowing question: "Have you ever molested a child?" Joe says,"no". The polygraph examiner claims he is lying.Assume that 1% of applicants have molested children (a highestimate). Further assume that the polygraph is 80% "accurate" (ahigh estimate). Note: 80% accurate means that the polygraph cancorrectly identify as positive 80% of all individuals tested who havethe tested-for trait (sensitivity) and can correctly identify asnegative 80% of all individuals who do not have the tested-for trait(specificity).If 1,000 applicants were given a polygraph, the resultswould be as follows:Subjects No. with Positive Test No. with Negative Test10 childmolesters 8 (true positives) 2 (false negatives)990 notchildmolesters 198 (false positives) 792 (true negatives)Of the 206 individuals with a positive test result, only 8would actually be child molesters. The predictive value of anypositive result is 8/206 or 3.88%. Therefore, even if Joe has a"positive" test result, the odds of him actually being a childmolester are only 1 in 25.1. You are an attorney who has been called by Joe. Hereally needs the job and feels terribly that people think that hemight be a child molester. He knows that the administrator of theI/ From Employment Law: Cases and Materials, by Rothstein, et al.,The Foundation Press, Inc., Mineola, NY (1987) p. 143-144. [Reviewedin 8 J.NAALJ 67 (Spring, 1988).]day care center is considering whether to accept the polygraphfindings. You schedule a meeting with the administrator to arguethat the polygraph is unreliable. What arguments would you make?2. Suppose you were counsel to the day care center. Usingthe polygraph is 4 times more accurate than not using anything. Inaddition, if you find another applicant who "passes" the polygraph,the predictive value (negative) is 792/794 or 99.7%. Thus, you wouldbe 99.7% sure that the person you hired would not be a child molester.What responsibility does the day care center owe to the children andtheir parents? What do you recommend?This scene shows the contrast of the old and new New Orleans. In thebackround, Place St. Charles is shown, a new structure in the centralbusiness district. The foreground depicts a typical old French Quarterstructure.

Should Employers Use Polygraphs to Screen Prospective Employees?

https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&amp;context=naalj

Should Employers Use Polygraphs to Screen Prospective Employees?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Pepperdine Digital Commons