Nebraska § 81-1932 Employee; use of truth and deception examination; when; limitation

Nebraska Statutes

§ 81-1932 — Employee; use of truth and deception examination; when; limitation

Nebraska § 81-1932

Ch. 81State Administrative Departments

This text of Nebraska § 81-1932 (Employee; use of truth and deception examination; when; limitation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1932 (2026).

Text

No employer or prospective employer may require as a condition of employment or as a condition for continued employment that a person submit to a truth and deception examination unless such employment involves public law enforcement. This shall not be construed to prohibit such employer from asking an employee or applicant to submit to a truth and deception examination if:

(1)No questions are asked during the truth and deception examination concerning the examinee's sexual practices, labor union, political or religious affiliations, or marital relationships;

(2)The examinee is given written and oral notice that the examination is voluntary and that the examinee may discontinue the examination at any time;

(3)The employer or prospective employer has the employee or applicant sign a form

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

No employer or prospective employer may require as a condition of employment or as a condition for continued employment that a person submit to a truth and deception examination unless such employment involves public law enforcement. This shall not be construed to prohibit such employer from asking an employee or applicant to submit to a truth and deception examination if:
(1) No questions are asked during the truth and deception examination concerning the examinee's sexual practices, labor union, political or religious affiliations, or marital relationships;
(2) The examinee is given written and oral notice that the examination is voluntary and that the examinee may discontinue the examination at any time;
(3) The employer or prospective employer has the employee or applicant sign a form stating that the examination is being taken voluntarily;
(4) Questions that are asked prospective employees are job related;
(5) Prospective employees are not preselected for a truth and deception examination in a discriminatory manner;
(6) An employee is only requested to submit to a truth and deception examination if such examination concerns itself with a specific investigation;
(7) The results of a truth and deception examination are not the sole determinant in the termination of employment; and
(8) All questions that are asked during a truth and deception examination and the responses of the examinee are kept on file by the employer for a period of one year.

30 Fair empl.prac.cas. 477, 29 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,698 Miguel G. Ramirez v. The City of Omaha, a Municipal Corporation Al Veys, Mayor Larry L. Wewel, Personnel Director Vernon Van Scoy, Jr., Fire Chief and Robert Thorsen, Police Officer, Individually and in Their Official Capacities Richard Roth, Public Safety Director, Larry G. Leeds v. The City of Omaha, a Municipal Corporation Vernon Van Scoy, Jr., Fire Chief Individually and in Their Official Capacities Larry Wewel, Former Personnel Director William McDonnell Public Safety Director Robert Thorsen, Police Officer

678 F.2d 751 (Eighth Circuit, 1982)

Legislative History

Source: Laws 1980, LB 485, § 32. Annotations: Mandatory use of polygraph tests by employers are statutorily prohibited in Nebraska except for those engaged in public law enforcement. This section does not purport to make the results of polygraph examinations admissible in any proceeding. Mathes v. City of Omaha, 254 Neb. 269, 576 N.W.2d 181 (1998). This section clearly sets forth a public policy prohibiting the use of a polygraph examination by an employer to deny employment. This section is a criminal statute and must be narrowly construed. White v. State, 248 Neb. 977, 540 N.W.2d 354 (1995). The plain language of subsection (7) requires that the employee be terminated if this section is to form the basis for further action against the employer. Collins v. Baker's Supermarkets, 223 Neb. 365, 389 N.W.2d 774 (1986). This statute is a criminal statute and must be strictly construed. Collins v. Baker's Supermarkets, 223 Neb. 365, 389 N.W.2d 774 (1986).