Last year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision in Baker v. CVS Health Corporation with an important reminder to employers regarding their required disclosure in employment applications regarding the Massachusetts Lie Detector Statute. This post explains the case and applicable law and outlines practical steps employers can take to stay compliant and avoid similar legal risks.
The Law:
Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 149, Section 19B, employers are prohibited from administering lie detector tests to employees or job applicants. Under the law, a “lie detector test” is defined broadly to include any test—whether using a polygraph, device, written exam, or other method—that is used to detect deception, verify truthfulness, or assess an individual's honesty.
The law also contains notice requirements for employers regarding this law, stating:
All applications for employment within the commonwealth shall contain the following notice which shall be in clearly legible print:
''It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer who violates this law shall be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability.”
The Case:
In January 2021, Plaintiff Brendan Baker applied for a job at CVS in Massachusetts. Baker underwent CVS’s applicant screening process, which included a video interview that used artificial intelligence technology to analyze an applicant’s facial expressions and vocal cues to evaluate personality traits, including honesty and integrity. Baker later sued CVS, arguing that the technology functioned as a lie detector test, violating Massachusetts law, and that CVS failed to provide the mandatory lie detector notice in its online application. Notably, Baker attempted to represent a class of plaintiffs who participated in the AI interview with CVS.
CVS moved to dismiss the claim that it failed to provide Baker notice under the Lie Detector Statute, claiming there was no private right of action for omitting the notice and that Baker suffered no actual harm. The court ruled in favor of Baker, confirming there is a private right of action available under the Lie Detector Statute and concluding that Baker had alleged a sufficient “informational injury” due to the lack of required notice by CVS. The court emphasized that not receiving the notice deprived him of the opportunity to make an informed choice about participating in the interview.
Although Baker’s claims survived the motion to dismiss, Baker and CVS later reached a confidential settlement. The case has since sparked similar lawsuits—including class actions—alleging violations of the Lie Detector Statute.
Takeaways for Massachusetts Employers:
The Baker case emphasizes the importance of employers providing notice under the Massachusetts Lie Detector Statute, as failure to provide such notice may establish a legally cognizable claim.
Employers should take the following steps to ensure they are meeting their legal obligations under the law:
- Audit your job applications. Ensure all applications—both hard copies and online versions—contain the required disclosure.
- Make the disclosure early in the process. If your organization’s hiring process doesn’t involve a traditional job application (e.g., candidates apply by submitting a résumé or completing a short online form), you should still provide the lie detector notice early in the process. Massachusetts law doesn’t define “application,” so the safest approach is to treat any form of applicant intake as potentially triggering the notice requirement.
- Evaluate your hiring technology. If your organization uses AI, biometric screening, or personality assessments, carefully assess whether those tools analyze traits related to honesty, integrity, or truthfulness. Under Massachusetts law, such tools could be considered prohibited lie detector tests—even if they don’t involve polygraphs. Know exactly what functions your software is performing and whether it might violate the Lie Detector Statute.
