Walgreens Class Action: Job Applications Omit Lie Detector Disclaimer

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit claims Walgreens violated Massachusetts law by omitting a required disclaimer about lie detector tests on its job applications.

Consumers Affected: Job applicants in Massachusetts who applied for positions at Walgreens.

Court: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk SS

Walgreens is facing a lawsuit in Massachusetts for allegedly failing to inform job applicants of their rights concerning lie detector tests during the hiring process. 

The proposed class action claims the pharmacy chain violated state law by omitting a legally required disclaimer on applications, which protects applicants from being subjected to lie detector tests as a condition of employment.

Walgreens Omitted Lie Detector Disclaimer on Job Applications, Lawsuit Claims

The lawsuit was filed by Amy Spaulding, who applied for a Pharmacy Customer Service Associate position at Walgreens’ Amesbury location. According to Spaulding, the application did not include the mandatory warning:

“It is unlawful in Massachusetts to require or administer a lie detector test as a condition of employment or continued employment. An employer who violates this law shall be subject to criminal penalties and civil liability.”

Spaulding argues that this omission deprived her and other applicants of their rights, leaving them uninformed about the legal protections they’re entitled to. She alleges that Walgreens’ failure to comply with Massachusetts law amounts to a systematic violation affecting all its job postings.

Other Companies Face Scrutiny Over Lie Detector Use in Hiring

Walgreens isn’t the first company in Massachusetts to face legal action over hiring practices involving lie detector tests. CVS Health recently settled a similar case where job applicants alleged they were subjected to artificial intelligence assessments that acted as lie detectors without proper notice.

The CVS case highlighted concerns about AI-based tools like HireVue, which analyzes facial expressions and other cues to assess candidates’ honesty and integrity. Critics argue such technology could violate decades-old laws like the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, which prohibits lie detector use in most hiring processes. These tools also face criticism for potential biases against people of color and individuals with disabilities.

Walgreens Faces Other Legal Challenges

The lawsuit over job applications is just one of many legal challenges Walgreens has faced recently. In a separate matter, the company agreed to pay $106.8 million to settle claims it improperly billed government healthcare programs for prescriptions that were never picked up by patients.

The government alleged that between 2009 and 2020, Walgreens submitted false claims to Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs, reaping millions of dollars for unfilled prescriptions. As part of the settlement, Walgreens implemented new systems to prevent similar issues in the future and received credit for cooperating with authorities.

In her lawsuit against the pharmacy giant, Spaulding wants to represent other Massachusetts-based applicants in her accusations the company violated state law and she is seeking at least $500 per violation, a corrective advertising campaign and injunctive relief, fees, costs, interest.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Spaulding v. Walgreen Co.
• Case Number:  2484CV03015
• Court: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk SS

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• David S. Godkin and James E. Kruzer (Birnbaum & Bodkin, LLP)
• Joshua D. Arisohn, Matthew A. Girardi, and Julian C. Diamond (Bursor & Fisher, P.A.)

Have you applied for a job at Walgreens in Massachusetts? Share your experience in the comments below.