What is the legal ramifications of refusing a polygraph? If an employer puts it in the work contract that they may require a polygraph (either to gain employment or keep it) can I refuse? The relevant statutory body regarding polygraphs in the US mentions on their website that nobody can be forced to do a polygraph. It also mentions refusing to do one is not an admission of guilt.
It depends. There is a law, 29 USC Ch. 22, which generally prohibits employers from requiring polygraph tests before or during employment. However, there are exceptions. It only limits private employers, not governments; certain private employers are allowed to require such tests. The exemptions are set out here. They broadly fall into &quot;government security concerns&quot; (defense subcontractors etc.), security firms, and drug companies. The penalties to be visited on violators are spelled out here.
Absolutely not. Lack of authority Law enforcement officers do not have the authority to grant immunity from prosecution. The decision to prosecute lies with the district attorney's office. Courts have sometimes held that a promise of immunity by a police officer can make resulting statements inadmissible, but that's it -- the state is not bound by the police officer's promise to not prosecute, except in exceptional cases. They can gather other evidence and prosecute anyway. Prospective immunity The contract claims to provide immunity against prosecution for future crimes. Contracts against public policy are void, and I'm having trouble thinking of something which is more against public policy than a license to commit crimes. No one can offer that immunity through contract. In a recent trial of a Boston mob boss, he attempted to claim that a federal prosecutor had given him immunity for any and all future crimes for some time period; the court did not accept that, because a license to break the law is not a valid contract. Public authority There is a situation in which certain officers can grant authority to break certain laws: to catch bigger criminals. However, for fairly obvious reasons, there are extremely strict rules on when this is valid, both on the government procedure side and the claiming-the-defense side. The defense can only work if the defendant honestly believed the government had authorized his actions, if the government actually had authorized them, or if he followed official government legal advice. In this case, the defendant has no idea if government officials have agreed to the terms; he would have approximately no chance of convincing anyone he legitimately thought that the government approved of his actions. They certainly wouldn't be actually properly authorized, and he hasn't sought advice from the government. Other issues Police aren't the only people on this site. An investigation tends to involve one or more non-government agents who provide testimony in court. No contract with a private party can stop them from testifying in a criminal trial; certain relationships mean testimony isn't allowed (e.g. a lawyer can't testify about dealings with their client without client permission), but regular users could be required to testify against the site operator (possibly on the basis of actual immunity). Sources Public authority stuff: this Justice Department page, plus some discussion in this order. Prospective immunity: that same order. Lack of authority: myriad readings.
You can probably refuse A contract cannot be changed unilaterally unless the contract provides for unilateral change - its unlikely your contract does. In any event, the person with such a power of unilateral change has to exercise it reasonably. It is an implied term of employment contracts that the employee must obey the lawful and reasonable directions of the employer. So the question is, is the requirement to use a fingerprint time clock both lawful and reasonable? Well, at first blush, without genuine consent on your part (and &quot;do it or get fired&quot; is not genuine consent) this would appear to breach the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. The biometric data of your finger is personal information and, as such, it can only be collected with your consent. A similar factual case was decided in queensland (Note: the Australian law will be different in some ways from the Canadian law but they both require consent for collection) last year in that way.
The validity of the NDA is not an easy question, but a related one is more clear. A lawyer in the U.S. in most states is not permitted to threaten criminal or administrative action (e.g. reporting someone to immigration or tax officials), to gain advantage in a civil case. You can unilaterally bring criminal charges or take administrative action, but it is deemed to be unethical and against public policy to refrain from bringing criminal charges or taking administration action to gain civil advantages. An NDA of the type described arguably violated the same public policy and might be invalidated as a result. Put another way, there is a privilege to make certain reports to public officials without legal consequences and such an NDA might violate that privilege. Some of these privileges found in what are called "whistle blower" statutes specifically prohibit this kind of agreement as to some specific kinds of illegal conduct, but not others. There isn't a general rule. This said, it is not black and white. For example, a private NDA can't prevent someone from testifying under subpoena, but can prevent someone from voluntarily testifying in the absence of a legal compulsion to do so such as a subpoena. Suppose a woman is sexually assaulted at work, and is given an NDA to sign. Can the company legally require her not to disclose the conduct of an illegal activity? I can imagine this example coming out different ways in different jurisdictions. For example, some states have a legal duty (rarely enforced) that requires people to report felonies, and an NDA in this case would contradict that affirmative legal duty, while others do not. Another source of gray in the analysis is that there is a difference between not reporting a sexual assault that actually happened, and, as part of a larger settlement, executing an affidavit stating under penalty of perjury and under oath that a sexual assault didn't happen. The first is potentially an NDA that is void as a matter of public policy. The other, in principle, is a settlement that the person signing the affidavit can only enter into if it is true. There is nothing, in general, wrong, about requiring someone to confirm that certain representations are true as part of a business transaction or contract and allowing the contract to go forwards only if certain facts are true. The gray gets deeper, because whether a sexual assault happened or not is not always a subjectively black and white clear issue of pure fact. (It is subjective because an affidavit or affirmation is made to the best of the declarant or affiants' knowledge and belief, not as a matter of objective fact.) For example, someone may not have perfect memory of what happened, or there could be doubt over the question of whether the perpetrators acted recklessly (the Model Penal Code intent requirement for sexual assault) or merely with criminal negligence (which would not be sexual assault under the Model Penal Code). A statement made under oath about whether a sexual assault happened to the best of your knowledge, thus, might be a mixture of factual issues (A penetrated B at a certain date and time) and legal or not perfectly factually known ones (A acted with X intent regarding consent during that act). So, in a case where there was some room to argue either way about how to characterize what happened and about what actually did happen, there might be some room for a settling party to make a non-perjured statement consistent with the settlement and then to agree not to a true NDA, but instead to not make statements which, if the affidavit is true, would be false. In a plea bargain in a criminal case, one can plead "no contest" without agreeing that the crime factually happened, but that isn't really possibly in the context of an affidavit about what really happened, with an NDA limited to not disclosing the incident since it was already agreed as a matter of sworn fact that there is nothing to disclose that rises the level of a crime.
I did not write "confidential" on my letter, but I assumed a business proposal is automatically considered as a confidential material. An incorrect assumption unfortunately. Unless you have a confidentiality agreement (NDA) with the first company, they and their agents are not under any legal obligation to keep information you share with them confidential. How is the legal situation here? There is none on your side. You lied about a direct question asked and were caught in the lie. Company A had no obligation to keep what you sent confidential. Even if they did, that may not (depending on how the confidentiality agreement is worded) keep the employee of company A stating that they had received the same proposal. Chalk this one up to a lesson on confidentiality and honesty in business. There are no reasonable assumptions of confidentiality in business unless you specifically state that they are confidential or are provided as part of a confidentiality agreement.
Can a prospective employer require you to pay to take a test as part of an interview? That is unlawful. Section 10 of the BC Employment Standards Act prohibits a person to "request, charge or receive, directly or indirectly, from a person seeking employment a payment for (a) employing or obtaining employment for the person seeking employment". See also section 11. A prospective employer is allowed to require proof of credentials (such as certifications or a diploma) which in turn might entail a non-reimbursable cost to the candidate. However, that is permissible because the credibility inherent to renown credentialing systems facilitates ascertaining that the prospective employer has no ulterior motive (i.e., profit) for requiring candidates to consume services from a certifying agency. In other words, the employer and the certifying agency must be two separate, totally unrelated agencies, for the former's reliance on the latter to be cognizable in a context of screening candidates. The post on WorkplaceSE basically describes a scam. Although that post refers to the UK, it is most likely that many other jurisdictions contain a legislative provision similar to the aforementioned statute. As an example, see M[ichigan]CL 408.478.
Contracts can say all sorts of unenforceable things, you provided an example of one of them. A person cannot be compelled to stay and work somewhere they no longer wish to work. At the risk of getting my wrist slapped for straying too far into the land of opinion, a clause like this is likely intended to take advantage of naive teenagers who will provide free employment referrals because they think they have to.
united-states The Thirteenth Amendment forbids slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. This means that, outside of unique situations like the military, an employer cannot keep you as an employee against your will. Any contract that denies you the right to quit your job is illegal. A contract might require a reasonable notice period or something along those lines, but it cannot bind you to work for the company for as long as the company wants. While you can sign an employment contract without it being involuntary servitude, the Thirteenth Amendment is also generally read to mean that your employer can only sue you for money if you refuse to work. A US court cannot order you to work for an employer and threaten to hold you in contempt of court if you refuse. This doctrine predates the end of slavery, but the Thirteenth Amendment is among the reasons now cited to justify it.