Legal Opinion
O'HARTIGAN v. Department of Personnel
Washington Supreme Court
Decided December 26, 1991No. 56063-3PublishedCited by 63 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGuy, J.
Respondent applied for employment with the appellants. As a precondition to being considered for a position, she was required to submit to a polygraph examination. She refused and consequently was informed that she would not be considered. She challenges both the polygraph *114examination and RCW 49.44.120, which authorizes the exam, as unconstitutional violations of her right to privacy and right to equal protection. The trial court granted her partial summary judgment on both issues. This court accepted direct review and reverses.
Facts
In June 1986, respondent Margaret O'Hartigan applied for a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Whalen v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Texas State Employees Union v. Texas Department of Mental Health & Mental RetardationTexas Supreme Court · 1987
- Long Beach City Employees Assn. v. City of Long BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by63 opinions
- State v. HalstienWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Smith v. Stillwell-SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of BellevueWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of BellevueWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. RilesWashington Supreme Court · 1998
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.