Employment – AI – Lie detector

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff job applicant has alleged that the defendant bank subjected him to an unlawful lie detector test by requiring him to take a “HireVue” interview, which is an artificial-intelligence-powered job candidate screening tool, that claim must be dismissed because the plaintiff’s complaint contains insufficient allegations to support the inference that his interview was used for the purpose of truth assessment.

“Plaintiff Mozart Saint Cyr alleges that Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (‘JPMorgan’) subjected him to an unlawful lie detector test as part of a job application and failed to provide a written notice of his rights regarding such tests, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 19B (the ‘Lie Detector Statute’). …

“Plaintiff alleges that JPMorgan subjected him to a (de facto) lie detector test by requiring him to take a HireVue Interview as part of his job application. … However, the Amended Complaint contains insufficient allegations to support the inference that his interview was used for the purpose of truth assessment. Plaintiff’s allegations do no more than establish that HireVue Interviews could constitute lie detector tests when used for that purpose. However, this is not enough. Any ‘device, mechanism, instrument or written examination’ could qualify as a lie detector test if used for that purpose. To wit, if an employer were to give his applicant an IQ test on the belief that people with certain IQs are inherently deceitful, wanting to find that out, that would likely violate the Lie Detector Statute, notwithstanding the apparent silliness of that usage. Thus, that HireVue holds its product out as having any capability with respect to truth detection matters only insofar as it makes plausible that JPMorgan used the HireVue Interview for that purpose.

“Plaintiff’s allegations demonstrate the multi-utility of a HireVue Interview, making JPMorgan’s mere alleged use inadequate to demonstrate its purpose. HireVue generates scores from its interviews based on ‘precise criteria [that] are often developed in consultation with the employer,’ ‘tailored to meet employers’ highly individualized needs.’ … Thus, a HireVue Interview might plausibly be employed for a wide variety of lawful (or unlawful) purposes, and nothing in the allegations suggests that lie detection is chief among its use cases, such to make any given user’s purpose readily apparent. … JPMorgan’s use of HireVue Interviews is therefore ‘merely “consistent with” unlawful action and is ‘just as much in line with’ lawful action.’ … Plaintiff offers no other allegations that would permit the inference that JPMorgan has used or uses HireVue Interviews, either generally or as to Plaintiff’s application, for the unlawful purpose.

“Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s lie detector allegations ‘wholly conclusory’ and so will dismiss the Lie Detector Claim. …

“Without a viable allegation of having been subjected to a lie detector test, Plaintiff lacks Article III standing for his Notice Claim, and so the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider it. …

“Because the Court finds a lack of Article III standing, a jurisdictional defect, ‘the proper course is remand.’ … Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), the Court will remand the Notice Claim.”

Saint Cyr v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-586-25) (8 pages) (Murphy, J.) (Civil Action No. 25-11751-BEM) (Oct. 22, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.