U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Ann K. Stehney, Plaintiff, v. (Versus) William J. Perry et al., Defendants; Number CIV. 94-6306(GEB); United States District Court, District of New Jersey, November 6, 1995

NCJ Number
Polygraph Volume: 25 Issue: 1 Dated: (1996) Pages: 81-99
N Ansley
Date Published
19 pages
This court case is printed in its entirety because it may be useful to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that have their polygraph programs challenged.
Plaintiff was denied continued access to classified information in her work under a Federal contract because she refused to submit to a polygraph examination. Eleven months after her clearance was terminated, plaintiff filed suit. First, plaintiff argues that she is entitled to mandamus relief to force National Security Agency officials to carry out certain duties alleged to be owed to her by regulation. In the second count of the Complaint, plaintiff maintains that the procedures used to deprive her of her access to classified information and to deny her appeals deprived her of a property interest without due process of law. The third count of the Complaint alleges that defendants' requirement that plaintiff submit to a polygraph examination was in contravention of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In Count IV, plaintiff asserts that defendants' limited exemption from the polygraph examination lacked any rational basis and was granted solely to male employees in violation of the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Plaintiff alleges in Count V that defendants' polygraph requirement violates New Jersey law and public policy. Finally, in Count VI, plaintiff maintains that defendants violated New Jersey employment discrimination law by failing to assist plaintiff in her attempt to secure an exemption in the same manner defendants assisted male employees. For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum Opinion, the court granted Federal defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I through V of the Complaint. Further, the court denied nonfederal defendants' motion for summary judgment and, instead, dismissed Count VI of the Complaint.


No download available