## Facts

- Dwayne D. Campbell worked as an at-will production manager for Woodard Photographic, Inc. (WPI) at its Bellevue, Ohio facility (2001–2004).
- After multiple thefts at WPI locations, a “memory-mate envelope” containing about $2,700 disappeared from the Bellevue store on November 10, 2004.
- WPI owners Marc Woodard and Roger Wilburn met with employees, stated WPI would investigate, and referenced the possibility of polygraph examinations; no polygraph was administered.
- Woodard and Wilburn requested written accounts from employees with access to the missing envelope; Campbell wrote that he did not leave the premises during work hours that day.
- WPI retained Corporate Intelligence Consultants, Inc. (CIC) and its employee Paul Johnson to investigate; CIC did not use polygraphs.
- The investigation included employee questionnaires and review of key-card logs; logs indicated Campbell left for 43 minutes on the day of the theft, contradicting his written account.
- WPI asserted additional suspicion based on an eBay transaction printout found in Campbell’s office listing items similar to missing equipment and reports placing Campbell near an inventory area.
- WPI reported its findings to local police; Johnson interviewed Campbell again and informed him he was terminated effective immediately.
- A police captain escorted Campbell out and seized Campbell’s personal items (including a computer and MP3 player) after stating police would seek a warrant if the items were not surrendered.

## Issues

1. Whether WPI’s reference to possible polygraph testing, without administering any test, violated the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA).
2. Whether Campbell’s termination was an adverse action “because of” a polygraph test or refusal to take one under the EPPA.
3. Whether an at-will employee stated a viable Ohio wrongful-discharge claim in violation of public policy based on the asserted EPPA-related policy and the investigation.
4. Whether defendants’ investigative conduct, including police involvement and seizure/handling of Campbell’s personal property, stated an actionable Ohio invasion-of-privacy claim.
5. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Decision

- Defendants’ summary-judgment motions were granted in part and denied in part.
- Summary judgment was granted for defendants on the EPPA claim.
- Summary judgment was granted for defendants on the Ohio wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claim.
- Summary judgment was granted for defendants on the IIED claim (including because Campbell did not oppose dismissal).
- Summary judgment was denied in part on the invasion-of-privacy claim, allowing at least some portion of that claim—centered on treatment of Campbell’s personal effects during the termination/police encounter—to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- EPPA liability generally requires an employer to require/request/suggest a lie-detector test in a manner the statute forbids, or to take adverse action because of a test or refusal; mere mention of a possible polygraph, without any test and without test-related causation, is insufficient.
- For EPPA retaliation/discrimination, the plaintiff must show the adverse employment action occurred “because of” protected polygraph-related conduct rather than independent investigatory evidence.
- Ohio public-policy wrongful discharge requires a clear public policy and a showing that discharge jeopardized that policy; where the asserted statutory policy is not violated on the facts and the employer has a legitimate investigatory basis, the claim fails.
- Ohio intrusion-upon-seclusion analysis distinguishes ordinary, work-related investigatory steps (e.g., questionnaires, review of workplace access records) from fact-specific conduct involving potential intrusion into an employee’s personal effects, which may be actionable depending on circumstances.
- IIED in Ohio requires extreme and outrageous conduct beyond all possible bounds of decency; routine workplace investigation and termination-related conduct ordinarily does not meet that threshold.

## Conclusion

The court held that WPI’s theft investigation and termination decision did not create EPPA liability and did not support an Ohio public-policy wrongful-discharge or IIED claim, but it permitted a narrowed invasion-of-privacy theory to proceed where the record raised factual questions about alleged intrusion involving Campbell’s personal property during the termination and police involvement.


Campbell v. Woodard Photographic, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 857 (N.D. Ohio 2006)