Campbell v. Woodard Photographic, Inc.

Dwayne Campbell (plaintiff) was an employee of Woodard Photographic, Inc. (Woodard) (defendant). While Campbell was working for Woodard, a series of thefts occurred. After an envelope with a significant amount of money was taken, the Woodard owners held a meeting with all Woodard employees. At that meeting, the owners said that they would conduct an investigation and mentioned the possibility of polygraph examinations. The parties later disputed, however, what exactly was said regarding the prospective lie-detector tests. After that meeting, the owners had Campbell complete a written questionnaire. Woodard then hired an outside firm to investigate the incidents; that firm did not generally use polygraph tests during investigations. Eventually, conflicts emerged in Campbell’s story. Although at one point Campbell claimed to have never left the premises on the day of the envelope theft, later evidence established that he did. This evidence came out during the investigation, after the Woodard owners had mentioned the possibility of a polygraph test. Other evidence also later inculpated Campbell. Eventually, Woodard terminated Campbell without having performed a polygraph examination, based on the other inculpatory evidence. Campbell sued Woodard for (as relevant here) violating the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). Woodard moved for summary judgment on that claim.