A recent Massachusetts Superior Court decision offers important guidance for both employers and job applicants about the state’s restrictions on lie detector tests in the hiring process.
Under Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 149, § 19B), employers are prohibited from requiring job applicants or employees to submit to lie detector tests. The statute also requires employers to provide written notice on employment applications informing applicants that such tests are unlawful. Violations can expose employers to statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, particularly in class action lawsuits.
In this case, a job applicant alleged that an online hiring assessment used by a large employer functioned as an unlawful “lie detector test.” The applicant also claimed that the employer failed to provide the required statutory notice. He sought to bring these claims on behalf of a class of similarly situated applicants.
The Court rejected both theories.
First, the Court held that the online assessment—described as a “Virtual Job Tryout”—was not a lie detector test within the meaning of the statute. While the assessment asked applicants to answer questions honestly and evaluated their responses, its purpose was to measure job-related competencies such as judgment, reliability, and adaptability and not to detect deception or verify truthfulness. The Court emphasized that simply requiring honesty or asking verifiable questions does not transform a hiring tool into a prohibited lie detector test.
Second, the Court dismissed the applicant’s claim based on the employer’s alleged failure to provide the required notice. Although the statute allows private lawsuits by “persons aggrieved,” the Court found that the applicant had not alleged any actual harm resulting from the missing notice. Massachusetts law requires a plaintiff to show a concrete, non-speculative injury to have standing. A technical violation alone—without real harm—is not enough.
The decision also highlights an important distinction: while private plaintiffs must show actual injury to proceed in court, the Massachusetts Attorney General may still enforce the statute and seek penalties even where no individual harm is proven.
For employers, this case reinforces that modern hiring assessments focused on skills and performance are generally permissible, even if they require truthful responses. However, employers should still ensure compliance with statutory notice requirements.
For applicants, the decision underscores that not every perceived unfair hiring practice gives rise to a viable legal claim. This is particularly true where no tangible harm can be shown.
Employers should take this opportunity to review their hiring processes to ensure compliance, while applicants should be aware of the legal standards that govern these claims. Staying informed on both sides can help prevent costly disputes and ensure fair hiring practices.
