Legal Opinion
Laney v. Getty
District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Decided May 5, 2014No. Civil Action No. 5:12-306-DCRPublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
DANNY C. REEVES, District Judge.
On June 25, 2012, Plaintiff Scott Laney was terminated from his employment with Defendant Stoner Mill Farm, LLC (“Stoner Mill”). Before the firing, an investigator employed by Stoner Mill and its attorney suggested that Laney take a polygraph examination. Laney refused and subsequently sued, claiming that the requested polygraph violated his rights under the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (“EPPA”). Because Laney would have been terminated regardless of whether he agreed or refused to submit to the polygraph, he cannot prevail…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Jeffreys v. City of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Wolfe v. Tobacco Express II, Inc.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 2014
- Laney v. GettyDistrict Court, E.D. Kentucky · 2014
- M. G. v. Metropolitan Interpreters & Translators, Inc.District Court, S.D. California · 2014