## Facts

- Darryl N. Veazey worked as an outage coordinator/dispatcher for a cable-television-related employer.
- Management suspected Veazey left a hostile anonymous voicemail for a coworker.
- Two managers conducted a four-hour interview; Veazey denied involvement.
- The employer demanded Veazey read a verbatim transcript of the threatening message into a tape recorder to create a voice exemplar for comparison or stress-analysis.
- Veazey refused to record the offensive message, citing concern about how the recording might be used, but offered to record a different exemplar.
- The employer suspended Veazey without pay and, after a second refusal three days later, discharged him for noncompliance.
- Veazey sued under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), alleging he was terminated for refusing to submit to a prohibited lie-detector-related procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether requiring an employee to create a tape-recorded voice exemplar for possible stress or deception analysis can constitute requiring or causing an employee to submit to a “lie detector test” under the EPPA.
2. Whether a complaint alleging discharge for refusing to provide such a recording states an EPPA claim sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The court held it was possible to hypothesize facts consistent with the complaint under which the employer’s conduct violated the EPPA.
- The court reasoned that although a tape recorder is not itself a lie detector, a recording can be an integral component of a voice stress analyzer or similar device covered by the EPPA.
- Because the complaint plausibly supported an inference that the employer sought the recording as part of a lie-detection process, dismissal at the pleading stage was improper.

## Legal Principles

- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, courts accept well-pleaded allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor; dismissal is improper if a set of facts consistent with the complaint could entitle the plaintiff to relief.
- The EPPA bars employers from requiring or causing employees to submit to lie-detector tests and from discharging employees for refusing such tests.
- “Lie detector” under the EPPA includes polygraphs and also “a voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device” used to render a diagnostic opinion about honesty or dishonesty.
- Statutory EPPA protections may extend beyond constitutional limits applicable to compelled voice exemplars in criminal contexts; the relevant question is whether the employer’s method functions as lie detection within the statute.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that allegations that an employer demanded a taped voice exemplar and fired the employee for refusing could state an EPPA claim, because the recording could be used with voice-stress or similar deception-detection technology covered by the statute; the case was remanded for further proceedings.


Veazey v. Commc’ns & Cable of Chi., Inc., 194 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 1999)