> IANAL but what's to prevent the litigating party from immediately filing a Daubert motion against an employer who tries to say they used the polygraph to 'scientifically' disqualify a prospective job seeker-since you can't just hand a polygraph machine to any on-staff HR rep and go "No go see if Bob here really graduated from MIT like he says", and the wealth of research telling us how problematic results can be?
Under what circumstances would a case like this even come to pass? From what I gathered from the article, these administrative hearings where applicants may plead their cases are not court proceedings but administrative hearings conducted by law enforcement officials.
Relief would likely come only under another course of action, like a civil rights case brought against the hearing committee (as mentioned in the article).
Unless you are referring to an action brought against the hearing committee on the basis that the test was improper because the person administering the test was untrained. At that point, I would imagine the court would not want to prescribe the hiring practices of local law enforcement and would defer to them (unless those practices could be shown to be discriminatory against some protected class).
Also, I didn't get the sense that these tests are administered by untrained HR reps, but I may have missed something in the article.
