10.2190/WHCU-6VML-7U22-V20N WHCU6VML7U22V20N 2 Employee Privacy Rights Challenge Employer Screening Techniques for The 1990s 105 114 20020509 20020509 20020509 20020509 WHCU6VML7U22V20N.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=WHCU6VML7U22V20N 2 Kurt H. Decker Esq. Stevens & Lee, Reading, Pennsylvania, St. Francis College, Loretto, Pennsylvania Employers have a legitimate need to know certain things about their employees. However, employers can no longer ignore the impact of statutory and judicially-imposed workplace privacy mandates. Warning signals have surfaced that impose increased employer liability for privacy violations. Federal and state statutory protections of employee privacy interests are increasingly being considered and adopted. To understand this developing area, privacy's increased importance for employers is discussed as it affects the workplace in screening employee information. <i>O'Brien v. Papa Gino's</i>, 780 F.2d 1067 (1st Cir. 1986) (privacy rights invaded by polygraph test). <i>Little v. Bryce</i>, 733 S.W.2d 937 (Tex. Ct. App. 1987) (defamatory communication that an employee has AIDS). <i>Biggins v. Hanson</i>, 252 Cal. App. 2d 16, 59 Cal. Rptr. 897 (1967) (reasons for employee termination). <i>Strachan v. Union Oil Co.</i>, 768 F.2d 703 (5th Cir. 1985) (employee forcefully transported from employer's plant to the doctor's office; complaint dismissed prior to reaching this issue). <i>Rulon-Miller v. IBM</i>, 162 Cal. App. 3d 241, 208 Cal. Rptr. 524 (1984) (dating a sales representative from a competing employer could not be prohibited where the employee did not have access to sensitive or confidential information). <i>Bulkin v. Western Kraft East, Inc.</i>, 422 F. Supp. 437 (E.D. Pa. 1976) (negligent maintenance of employment records). <i>Paradis v. United Technologies</i>, 672 F. Supp. 67 (D. Conn. 1987) (termination of an employee for refusing to identify fellow drug-using employees was wrongful where the employer promised assistance and to refrain from discrimination or retaliation if the employee disclosed his drug dependency). <i>Gordon v. Lancaster Osteopathic Hosp. Ass'n</i>, 340 Pa. Super. 253, 489 A.2d 1364 (1985) (letters from a medical staff requesting a hospital board to terminate a pathologist's privileges). <i>Perks v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.</i>, 611 F.2d 1393 (3rd Cir. 1979) (refusing to take a polygraph examination in state prohibiting its employment use). See <i>Palmateer v. International Harvester Co.</i>, 85 Ill. 2d 124, 421 N.E.2d 876 (1981) (supplying information to local law enforcement authorities about possible criminal activities). <i>Monge v. Beebe Rubber Co.</i>, 114 N.H. 130, 316 A.2d 549 (1974) (female employee refusing to go out with foreman). See Privacy Protection Study Commission, Personal Privacy in an Information Society, pp. 250-51, 1977.