Can You Sue for Wrongful Termination After a Mandatory Polygraph Test in California?
/
In McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC, the California Court of Appeals addressed a first-impression question with big ripple effects for workplace investigations: can an employer’s violation of California’s ban on mandatory polygraph testing support a wrongful termination claim based on public policy? The court said yes, holding that Labor Code section 432.2 can serve as the public policy foundation for a wrongful termination lawsuit when an employee is fired after a coerced polygraph test. The decision is a sharp reminder that “internal investigation” does not mean “anything goes,” especially when employee privacy rights are at stake.
Case: McDoniel v. Kavry Management, LLC
Court: California Court of Appeals
Case No.: D084660 (Superior Court No. CIVDS1926005)
The Plaintiff: McDoniel v. Kavry Management
Steven McDoniel is the plaintiff in this case. He worked as an assistant grower at Kavry Management, LLC, a licensed marijuana cultivation facility. After the theft, which occurred shortly after he was hired, McDoniel was directed to participate in a polygraph administered by the company’s owner. McDoniel alleged that the test was treated as mandatory; he was not given proper written notice of his statutory right to refuse, and he was terminated after allegedly failing the polygraph.
Who Are the Defendants in the Case?
Kavry Management, LLC is the defendant in the case.
Kavry is described as a licensed marijuana cultivation business. In this lawsuit, Kavry was accused of requiring employees to submit to polygraph testing as part of an internal response to theft and then using the results to justify termination, allegedly without complying with the notice-and-consent protections required by California law.
A Brief History of the McDoniel v. Kavry Management Case
After being terminated, McDoniel filed suit against Kavry, asserting claims including wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The case went to trial, and a jury found Kavry liable for violating Labor Code section 432.2. The jury awarded McDoniel $100,000 in non-economic damages.
Kavry appealed. On appeal, the court upheld the jury’s finding and damages award, concluding there was substantial evidence the polygraph was mandatory for continued employment and that proper notice of rights was not provided. However, the Court of Appeal reversed an attorney fee award based on the timing and applicability of the fee statute relied on by the trial court.
The Main Question in the Case: McDoniel v. Kavry Management
Can an employer’s violation of California Labor Code section 432.2, which prohibits mandatory polygraph testing and requires notice of the right to refuse, serve as the public policy basis for a wrongful termination claim when an employee is fired after a polygraph exam tied to continued employment?
The Allegations: McDoniel v. Kavry Management
The case description includes several key allegations:
1. Polygraph testing was treated as mandatory.
After theft of cash and marijuana products, Kavry allegedly arranged for a polygraph examiner to test employees, including McDoniel. The process was allegedly presented as something employees were instructed to participate in, not a voluntary option.
2. The employer provided no written notice of statutory rights.
McDoniel alleged he did not receive written notice explaining his rights under Labor Code section 432.2, including the right to refuse the polygraph without retaliation or termination.
3. The employee was terminated based on the polygraph outcome.
McDoniel alleged he “failed” the polygraph and was terminated as a result, which he claimed was unlawful when the test itself was coerced and not handled in compliance with the statute.
4. The worker was wrongfully terminated in violation of public policy.
The plaintiff argued that Labor Code section 432.2 expresses a strong public policy protecting employee privacy and preventing coercive polygraph practices, and that his firing in connection with that unlawful process supported the wrongful termination claim.
What the Court of Appeal Decided
Based on the verified summary you provided, the Court of Appeal made three core determinations:
* Labor Code section 432.2 can support a wrongful termination claim based on a violation of public policy, including in cases where an employee is terminated after a mandatory polygraph test.
* There was substantial evidence supporting the jury’s conclusion that the exam was mandatory for continued employment and that Kavry did not provide proper notice of the right to refuse.
* The court upheld the jury’s $100,000 noneconomic damages award, but reversed the attorney fee award because the fee statute at issue did not apply retroactively to McDoniel’s employment timeline.
Key Takeaways for Employees
If your employer asks you to take a polygraph test, your rights may depend on the specifics of your situation, but this case highlights a few practical realities in California:
* Employees may have legal protections if a polygraph is presented as a condition of keeping their job.
* When the statute applies, written notice of rights is not optional.
* If an employee gets fired because they were forced to take a coerced polygraph test, they might have a valid wrongful termination claim under public policy protections.
FAQ: McDoniel v. Kavry Management
Q: What does Labor Code section 432.2 prohibit?
A: It generally prohibits employers from requiring employees or applicants to take a polygraph test as a condition of employment or continued employment and includes notice-related protections.
Q: What does “wrongful termination in violation of public policy” mean?
A: It is a claim alleging an employee was fired for reasons that violate an important public policy expressed in law, such as statutes designed to protect workers from coercive or abusive practices.
Q: Why did the court say this was an “issue of first impression”?
A: Because the Court of Appeal treated the question of whether a section 432.2 violation could support this specific type of wrongful termination claim as a new legal question not previously decided in that way.
Q: What damages were awarded in this case?
A: The jury gave the plaintiff $100,000 in non-economic damages, which the Court of Appeals agreed with, but the Court of Appeals also reversed the decision on the separate attorney fee award because of some timing and applicability issues.
Q: Does a failed polygraph automatically justify termination?
A: This case shows how relying on polygraph tests can be risky legally, especially when people feel like they have to take them or when their rights aren’t protected enough.
If you believe your employer required a polygraph test as a condition of continued employment, failed to provide the required notice of your rights, or terminated you for refusing a coercive workplace practice, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.
