Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mindcrime 2820 days ago
Polygraphs are pseudo-scientific nonsense with no actual validity. Why would anybody use that as part of a job screening?
2 comments

It gives employers a way to "scientifically" justify their hiring practices against discrimination lawsuits.
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?
> 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.

> IANAL but what's to prevent the litigating party from immediately filing

Not having the money to do so.

Heh, okay that's a fair and valid counterpoint, but entertain the hypothetical-I'm genuinely curious how that could play out if someone took a prospective employer to court following a polygraph that disqualifies them from further interviews.
Probably DQing yourself from future employment consideration.

Prospective employers don’t prefer litigious candidates. (seemingly regardless of merit).

My apologies, I was hoping from the context here that my "how would it play out" question would have implied "how would it play out in court" since the comment that originally got my curiosity pumping spoke directly to hypothetical discrimination lawsuits.
They still hold up in courts, and it gives an air of authority. A surprising number of people still believe in them as a valid tool.