Senate Votes Sharp Limits, 69-27, in Lie Detector Use

The Senate Thursday overwhelmingly passed legislation that would sharply limit the use of “lie detector” tests by businesses to screen job applicants or employees, maintaining that thousands of workers are being subjected to unreasonable suspicion.

The Senate, whose action reflects an unusually wide coalition of liberals and conservatives, voted 69 to 27 for the bill, despite vigorous opposition by business groups and the Reagan Administration. Some Administration officials have threatened a veto by President Reagan but the vote exceeds the margin that would be needed to override a veto.

“I’m sick and tired of the way people are using these devices,” said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), who, along with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), led the Senate effort to restrict “lie detectors,” known formally as polygraphs. “Some 320,000 honest Americans are branded as liars every single year” by tests that may be inaccurate and unreliable, Hatch said.

The measure must be reconciled with a broader ban that passed the House on a 254-158 vote last fall. The chief sponsor of the House legislation, Rep. Pat Williams (D-Mont.), predicted Thursday that the reconciliation process would take “two weeks to a month.”

The rapidly increasing use of polygraphs has led to many reports of abuse. The Senate Labor Committee estimates that 2 million tests are given each year, many by poorly trained operators. The devices have been most widely used by retail stores in efforts to halt employee theft.

Under the Senate bill, about 85% of those tests would be outlawed, sponsors say. The House bill would go further, making about 90% of current tests illegal.

Exponential growth in the number of tests has transformed the issue of polygraph abuse from a lonely crusade by civil libertarians and some unions into a major congressional priority. The strength the movement has now taken on was underlined by the cooperation of Hatch, one of the Senate’s staunchest conservatives, and Kennedy, one of its most liberal members.

Polygraphs, Kennedy said, are “to the 20th Century what witchcraft was two centuries ago.”

Although polygraphs have become a major issue nationally, the controversy largely has missed California. State law, dating from 1963, already prohibits any private employer from requesting polygraph tests “as a condition of employment or condition for continued employment,” a prohibition more stringent than either the Senate or House bills.

Bill Includes Fines

Union and management labor lawyers contacted Thursday said that they had heard of very few incidents involving polygraph abuses in the state. The state law, however, imposes no direct penalties for violations. The proposed federal legislation would include fines--$10,000 in the Senate version--and would put the additional weight of federal law behind any employees who are asked to take illegal tests.

Both the House and Senate bills would bar routine testing of job applicants, though they would provide special exemptions for certain industries, including armored car companies, security firms and utilities operating nuclear power plants. Both bills also exempt government agencies from the ban.

The two bills differ widely, however, on their treatment of people who already hold jobs. Under the House bill, testing of current employees would be banned except in the specially exempted industries. The Senate bill would allow testing of current employees, but only under restricted circumstances.

Would Set Standards

Under the Senate bill, the Labor Department would be directed to come up with specific regulations governing employee tests that would set standards for the training of operators and the conditions under which tests could be given. Also, before employers could ask workers to take a polygraph test, they would have to demonstrate “reasonable suspicion” that the employee had committed a specific crime.

Polygraphs cannot directly detect lies. Instead, they chart such things as a person’s heart rate, pulse, breathing and sweat production. Operators claim that by examining those charts they can tell when a test subject is under stress caused by the telling of a falsehood.

Critics of the tests note many potential flaws: Some people have stressful reactions merely to the tests, themselves, rather than to lying. At the same time, hardened criminals often show no reaction to telling untruths. In addition, reading the test results is more an art than a science and depends heavily on the training of the operator.