Nothing on this page is advice about your job, and no article can be. If you want your own facts looked at, a Minnesota employment attorney can do that — and several of the deadlines described on this site are short enough that waiting is itself a decision.
In this guide
The Minnesota section is about the purpose of the test, not the machine
Minn. Stat. § 181.75, subd. 1, does four things in four sentences:
No employer or agent thereof shall directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee. No person shall sell to or interpret for an employer or the employer’s agent a test that the person knows has been solicited or required by an employer or agent to test the honesty of an employee or prospective employee. An employer or agent or any person knowingly selling, administering, or interpreting tests in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. If an employee requests a polygraph test any employer or agent administering the test shall inform the employee that taking the test is voluntary.
Take the first sentence apart. “[D]irectly or indirectly” — routing the request through a staffing agency or a security contractor is inside the prohibition. “[S]olicit or require” — asking is prohibited on the same terms as demanding, so “it’s voluntary, but we’d like you to” is not a way around it. And the object of the prohibition is not a list of machines: it is “a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee.” Two named instruments, and then a category defined by what the test claims to do.
The second sentence reaches past the employer entirely. The vendor who sells the test and the examiner who interprets it are covered, provided the person “knows” the test has been solicited or required for that purpose. The third sentence makes all of it a misdemeanor. The fourth handles the inverted case — an employee who asks for a polygraph — and requires the administering employer or agent to tell the employee that taking it is voluntary.
The claim: "It isn't a polygraph. It's a written integrity questionnaire, so the polygraph law doesn't apply."
Minnesota's section is not limited to polygraphs, and its title is not its text. Minn. Stat. § 181.75, subd. 1, forbids an employer to "directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee." The third item in that list is a category, not a device. Federal law is drafted the opposite way: 29 U.S.C. § 2001(3) provides that the term "lie detector" includes "a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechanical or electrical)" — a list of devices closing on a device, where the Minnesota prohibition's third item closes on a purpose. Whether a particular written test is one "purporting to test the honesty" of the person taking it is a question about that test's content, and applying the phrase to it is not what this page does.
What Minnesota does about a violation
Four routes sit in one short section, and they are not alternatives that exclude each other — subdivisions 3 and 4 both open with the phrase “[i]n addition to.”
A crime. Subdivision 1: “An employer or agent or any person knowingly selling, administering, or interpreting tests in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Note that “knowingly” attaches to the seller, administrator, and interpreter.
An agency investigation. Subdivision 2: “The Department of Labor and Industry shall investigate suspected violations of this section.” The department may refer evidence to “the county attorney of the appropriate county, who may with or without such reference, institute the appropriate criminal proceedings under this section.” The county attorney’s authority does not depend on a referral.
The attorney general. Subdivision 3 vests the courts with jurisdiction “to prevent and restrain violations of this section and to require the payment of civil penalties,” and provides that when it appears to the attorney general’s satisfaction that the section has been or is being violated, the attorney general “shall be entitled, on behalf of the state, to sue for and have injunctive relief in any court of competent jurisdiction against any such violation or threatened violation without abridging other penalties provided by law.”
A private action. Subdivision 4:
In addition to the remedies otherwise provided by law, any person injured by a violation of this section may bring a civil action to recover any and all damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney’s fees, and receive other equitable relief as determined by the court. The court may, as appropriate, enter a consent judgment or decree without a finding of illegality.
“[A]ny person injured” — not “any employee,” so a rejected applicant and the person whose test was interpreted are inside the words. Fees are recoverable, and so is something most Minnesota fee provisions omit: “costs of investigation.”
What subdivision 4 does not contain is a deadline. Neither §§ 181.75 nor 181.76 states a limitations period, and this page does not supply one.
The disclosure ban is a separate section, and a separate crime
Section 181.75, subd. 1, carries its own misdemeanor, so § 181.76 is not the criminal half of a single rule. It prohibits a different act — telling anyone that a test happened:
No person shall disclose that another person has taken a polygraph or any test purporting to test honesty or the results of that test except to the individual tested. If such a test is given after August 1, 1973 and at the employee’s request, the results may be given only to persons authorized by the employee to receive the results. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Three features are easy to miss. The prohibition is on “[n]o person,” not on an employer — it binds the examiner, the vendor, and a later employer alike. It covers the fact that a test was taken and not only the result. And its one permitted disclosure is “to the individual tested,” with a second channel opened only where the employee requested the test and authorized the recipients.
Where the section came from
Section 181.75 reached its current shape in 1976. The act is Laws 1976, ch. 256, and its own title states its purpose: “An act relating to labor, directing the commissioner of labor and industry to enforce the prohibition against administering polygraph tests to employees; prescribing penalties; amending Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 181.75; repealing Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 181.77.” The printed act carries all four of the subdivisions now in the section, its section 2 repeals § 181.77 outright, and its section 3 provides that “[t]his act is effective the day following its final enactment.” It was approved April 13, 1976.
The revisor’s posted History lines are short. Section 181.75: “1973 c 667 s 1; 1976 c 256 s 1; 1986 c 444.” Section 181.76: “1973 c 667 s 2.” Checked one exact section at a time against the revisor’s table of Minnesota Statutes affected by session laws, neither section has been amended, added, or repealed in the 2025 or 2026 sessions. Section 181.76 has not been touched since it was enacted in 1973.
The federal statute, and which one is broader where
The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 is 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001–2009. Its prohibition, § 2002, is broader than Minnesota’s in one respect and narrower in another:
Except as provided in sections 2006 and 2007 of this title, it shall be unlawful for any employer engaged in or affecting commerce or in the production of goods for commerce—
(1) directly or indirectly, to require, request, suggest, or cause any employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test;
(2) to use, accept, refer to, or inquire concerning the results of any lie detector test of any employee or prospective employee;
(3) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against—
(A) any employee or prospective employee who refuses, declines, or fails to take or submit to any lie detector test, or
(B) any employee or prospective employee on the basis of the results of any lie detector test; or
(4) to discharge, discipline, discriminate against in any manner, or deny employment or promotion to, or threaten to take any such action against, any employee or prospective employee because—
(A) such employee or prospective employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter,
(B) such employee or prospective employee has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or
(C) of the exercise by such employee or prospective employee, on behalf of such employee or another person, of any right afforded by this chapter.
Clause (1) adds two verbs Minnesota’s section does not use — “suggest” and “cause.” Clause (2) reaches the use of a result, including one from a test the employer never asked for. Clauses (3) and (4) are what Minnesota’s section does not have at all: an express prohibition on punishing the refusal, and an express anti-retaliation clause for complaining, testifying, or exercising a right under the chapter. That structure is the same shape as the retaliation clauses collected in whistleblower claims: the map, and it exists in the federal statute rather than in § 181.75.
The federal statute is narrower in three places that matter.
It does not reach government employers. 29 U.S.C. § 2006(a): “This chapter shall not apply with respect to the United States Government, any State or local government, or any political subdivision of a State or local government.” Minn. Stat. § 181.75 contains no such exclusion in its text; the section says “[n]o employer or agent thereof” and defines neither term.
It is written around a device. 29 U.S.C. § 2001(3) provides that the term “lie detector” includes “a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechanical or electrical) that is used, or the results of which are used, for the purpose of rendering a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.” That is an open definition rather than a closed one, but every item enumerated in it is a device and the residual clause is “any other similar device.” Section 2001(4) then defines “polygraph” by what the instrument must record and how — “changes in cardiovascular, respiratory, and electrodermal patterns,” recorded “continuously, visually, permanently, and simultaneously … as minimum instrumentation standards.” Minnesota’s third category — “any test purporting to test the honesty” — has no device requirement at all.
It has exemptions. Section 2006(d) permits a polygraph “in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer’s business, such as theft, embezzlement, misappropriation, or an act of unlawful industrial espionage or sabotage,” where the employee “had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation,” the employer has “a reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved,” and the employer executes a written statement, signed by someone other than the examiner who can legally bind the employer, retained “for at least 3 years,” setting out “with particularity the specific incident or activity being investigated and the basis for testing particular employees.” Subsections (e) and (f) add exemptions for certain security-services employers and for any employer “authorized to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance listed in schedule I, II, III, or IV of section 812 of title 21” — a phrase that reaches a pharmacy, not only a manufacturer. Section 2007 then restricts the exemptions — under § 2007(a)(1) the ongoing-investigation exemption “shall not apply if an employee is discharged, disciplined, denied employment or promotion, or otherwise discriminated against in any manner on the basis of the analysis of a polygraph test chart or the refusal to take a polygraph test, without additional supporting evidence.”
Federal law says what happens where the two differ. 29 U.S.C. § 2009:
Except as provided in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of section 2006 of this title, this chapter shall not preempt any provision of any State or local law or of any negotiated collective bargaining agreement that prohibits lie detector tests or is more restrictive with respect to lie detector tests than any provision of this chapter.
The claim: "There's been a theft. The law lets us polygraph everyone who had access to the register."
That is the federal exemption, and Minn. Stat. § 181.75 does not contain one. 29 U.S.C. § 2006(d) permits a polygraph request on four conditions, all four of which have to be met: the test is administered "in connection with an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer's business"; the employee "had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation"; the employer has "a reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation"; and the employer executes a statement, "provided to the examinee before the test," signed by someone other than the examiner who can legally bind the employer, retained "for at least 3 years," and setting out "with particularity the specific incident or activity being investigated and the basis for testing particular employees." Section 2006(d) is itself "[s]ubject to sections 2007 and 2009," and § 2007(a)(1) withdraws the exemption where an employee is disciplined on the polygraph chart or the refusal "without additional supporting evidence." Minnesota's section says an employer shall not "directly or indirectly solicit or require" the test, and stops. A word search of § 181.75 as the revisor posts it returns no use of "except," "exception," "unless," or "notwithstanding" anywhere in its four subdivisions; the only "except" in either section is in § 181.76, and it is the disclosure permission "except to the individual tested." A search of the full text of chapter 181 for "polygraph," "lie detector," "voice stress," and "honesty" finds those words only in §§ 181.75 and 181.76 and in the chapter's table of sections. That is a search of chapter 181, not of all of Minnesota law, and this page claims no more than it searched. 29 U.S.C. § 2009 provides that the federal chapter does not preempt a state law that "is more restrictive with respect to lie detector tests than any provision of this chapter," subject to § 2006(a), (b), and (c).
The federal remedies, side by side with Minnesota’s
29 U.S.C. § 2005 sets out three of them. Subsection (a)(1): an employer who violates any provision of the chapter “may be assessed a civil penalty of not more than $10,000,” with the Secretary of Labor directed by (a)(2) to take into account the employer’s compliance record and the gravity of the violation. Subsection (b) lets the Secretary sue to restrain violations, with district courts empowered to order “employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of lost wages and benefits.” Subsection (c)(1) makes the employer “liable to the employee or prospective employee affected by such violation” for the same categories of relief, and (c)(2) supplies the forum and the clock: an action “may be maintained against the employer in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction,” and “[n]o such action may be commenced more than 3 years after the date of the alleged violation.” Under (c)(3) the court “in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party (other than the United States) reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees.”
Two other federal provisions have no Minnesota counterpart in these sections. Section 2003 requires each employer to “post and maintain” the Secretary’s notice “in conspicuous places on its premises where notices to employees and applicants to employment are customarily posted.” And § 2005(d) forecloses contractual waiver: “The rights and procedures provided by this chapter may not be waived by contract or otherwise, unless such waiver is part of a written settlement agreed to and signed by the parties to the pending action or complaint under this chapter.”
| Minn. Stat. §§ 181.75–181.76 | 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001–2009 | |
|---|---|---|
| What is covered | “a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty” | a “lie detector” as § 2001(3) describes it — a list of devices, closing on “any other similar device” |
| Prohibited conduct | “directly or indirectly solicit or require”; selling or interpreting with knowledge; disclosing that a test was taken | “require, request, suggest, or cause”; using, accepting, referring to, or inquiring about results |
| Punishing a refusal | not named in the section | § 2002(3)(A), expressly |
| Retaliation for complaining | not named in the section | § 2002(4), expressly |
| Government employers | no exclusion in the text | excluded, § 2006(a) |
| Investigation exemption | none in the text | § 2006(d), on four conditions, limited by § 2007 |
| Criminal penalty | misdemeanor, §§ 181.75, subd. 1, and 181.76 | none in the chapter |
| Private action | § 181.75, subd. 4, with fees and costs of investigation | § 2005(c), fees discretionary |
| Deadline | none stated | 3 years, § 2005(c)(2) |
| Waiver | not addressed in these sections | barred except by written settlement, § 2005(d) |
Each row is the text of the provision named in it and nothing more. Where a cell says “not named in the section,” “none in the text,” or “none in the chapter,” that is a statement about the provisions named in the same row — the two Minnesota sections quoted on this page, or 29 U.S.C. §§ 2001 to 2009 as searched — and about nothing else.
This page describes the machinery. Whether a particular questionnaire is a “test purporting to test the honesty,” whether a request was made “indirectly,” and which of the two statutes reaches a particular employer are questions about facts and documents, and applying these sections to them is not what this page does. Related: was my firing illegal, drug and alcohol testing at work, and your personnel file is free discovery.
Common questions
- Can a Minnesota employer make me take a lie detector test?
- Minn. Stat. § 181.75, subd. 1, says no, and it goes further than requiring: 'No employer or agent thereof shall directly or indirectly solicit or require a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee.' Soliciting is prohibited on the same terms as requiring, and indirectly is prohibited on the same terms as directly. The subdivision makes a violation a misdemeanor, and subd. 4 gives the person injured a civil action for 'any and all damages recoverable at law, together with costs and disbursements, including costs of investigation and reasonable attorney's fees.'
- Does Minnesota's polygraph law cover written honesty or integrity tests?
- The section is written around what a test is for, not what machine it runs on. Minn. Stat. § 181.75, subd. 1, reaches 'a polygraph, voice stress analysis, or any test purporting to test the honesty of any employee or prospective employee.' The federal Employee Polygraph Protection Act is drafted the other way: 29 U.S.C. § 2001(3) provides that the term 'lie detector' includes 'a polygraph, deceptograph, voice stress analyzer, psychological stress evaluator, or any other similar device (whether mechanical or electrical)' used to render 'a diagnostic opinion regarding the honesty or dishonesty of an individual' — every item on that list, and the residual clause, is a device. Whether a particular written questionnaire is a 'test purporting to test the honesty' under § 181.75 is a question this page does not answer.
- There was a theft at my job. Can they polygraph the employees who had access?
- Federal law has an exemption for exactly that situation and Minnesota's section contains none. 29 U.S.C. § 2006(d) lets an employer request a polygraph in connection with 'an ongoing investigation involving economic loss or injury to the employer's business' where the employee had access, the employer has 'a reasonable suspicion that the employee was involved in the incident or activity under investigation,' and the employer executes and retains a particularized written statement. Minn. Stat. § 181.75 contains no comparable exemption in its text. 29 U.S.C. § 2009 provides that the federal chapter 'shall not preempt any provision of any State or local law … that prohibits lie detector tests or is more restrictive with respect to lie detector tests than any provision of this chapter,' subject to the exemptions in § 2006(a), (b), and (c).
- Can someone tell my next employer that I took a polygraph?
- Minn. Stat. § 181.76 forbids it: 'No person shall disclose that another person has taken a polygraph or any test purporting to test honesty or the results of that test except to the individual tested.' The section adds that where such a test is given after August 1, 1973 at the employee's request, 'the results may be given only to persons authorized by the employee to receive the results,' and that a violator 'is guilty of a misdemeanor.' The prohibition covers the fact that a test was taken, not only the result.
- How long do I have to sue over a polygraph in Minnesota?
- Section 181.75 does not say. Subdivision 4 creates the civil action and states no limitations period, and no period for it appears anywhere in §§ 181.75 or 181.76. This page does not supply one. The federal statute is explicit where the state one is silent: 29 U.S.C. § 2005(c)(2) provides that 'no such action may be commenced more than 3 years after the date of the alleged violation.'
Sources checked September 10, 2026. Citations independently verified against the primary source September 10, 2026.
- Minn. Stat. § 181.75 — Polygraph tests of employees or prospective employees prohibited
- Minn. Stat. § 181.76 — Disclosure of lie detector tests prohibited
- Minnesota Statutes, chapter 181 — table of sections
- Laws 1976, ch. 256 (amending § 181.75; repealing § 181.77)
- 29 U.S.C. § 2001 — Definitions (Employee Polygraph Protection Act)
- 29 U.S.C. § 2002 — Prohibitions on lie detector use
- 29 U.S.C. § 2003 — Notice of protection
- 29 U.S.C. § 2005 — Enforcement provisions
- 29 U.S.C. § 2006 — Exemptions
- 29 U.S.C. § 2007 — Restrictions on use of exemptions
- 29 U.S.C. § 2009 — Effect on other law and agreements