Where a plaintiff applied for a job with the defendant, which required the plaintiff to complete an online assessment called a “Virtual Job Tryout” (VJT), the plaintiff’s complaint under the Massachusetts lie detector statute must be dismissed because the facts alleged in his complaint do not plausibly suggest that the VJT was a lie detector test within the meaning of the statute.
“Jeffrey Forbes alleges that he applied for a job with AT&T Mobility Services LLC, which required Forbes to complete an online assessment called a Virtual Job Tryout. Forbes contends that the Virtual Job Tryout (or ‘VJT’) was an unlawful lie detector test, and that AT&T Mobility did not give him the required notice that lie detector tests are unlawful in Massachusetts. …
“Though Forbes has standing to press the ‘lie detector test claim’ in count II, that claim fails because the facts alleged by Forbes in his second amended complaint do not plausibly suggest that the Virtual Job Tryout was a lie detector test within the meaning of [G.L.c. 149,] §19B. The Court will therefore dismiss that claim with prejudice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
“In contrast, Forbes lacks standing to press the ‘lack of notice claim’ in count III because he has not alleged any facts suggesting that that he suffered any cognizable injury due to the lack of the statutorily-required notice, and therefore has no private right of action under §19B because he is not a ‘person aggrieved’ within the meaning of the...
Xiaomi is now offering a free hardware update for its high-performance electric car, the SU7 Ultra. Starting March 10, 2026, owners of this EV can book an appointment to fix the front hood. The upd...