CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS—APR. 16, 1996 110 STAT. 4407 (vi) Indirect loss or injury does not include loss or injury which is merely threatened or potential, e.g., a threatened or potential loss of an advantageous business relationship. (2) Economic losses or injuries which are the result of unintentional or lawful conduct would not serve as a basis for the administration of a polygraph test. Thus, apparently luiintentional losses or injuries stemming from truck, car, workplace, or other similar type accidents or routine inventory or cash register shortages would not meet the economic loss or injury requirement. Any economic loss incident to lawful union or employee activity also would not satisfy this requirement. (3) It is the operations of the employing office which must suffer the economic loss or injury. Thus, a theft committed by one employee against another employee of the same employing office would not satisfy the requirement. (d) While nothing in the EPPA as applied by the CAA prohibits the use of medical tests to determine the presence of controlled substances or alcohol in bodily fluids, the section 7(d) exemption of the EPPA does not permit the use of a polygraph test to learn whether an employee has used drugs or alcohol, even where such possible use may have contributed to an economic loss to the employing office (e.g., an accident involving an employing office's vehicle). (e) Section 7(d)(2) of the EPPA provides that, as a condition for the use of the exemption, the employee must have had access to the property that is the subject of the investigation. (1) The word access, as used in section 7(d)(2), refers to the opportunity which an employee had to cause, or to aid or abet in causing, the specific economic loss or injury under investigation. The term "access", thus, includes more than direct or physical contact during the course of employment. For example, as a general matter, all employees working in or with authority to enter a property storage area have "access" to unsecured property in the area. All employees with the combination to a safe have "access" to the property in a locked safe. Employees also have "access" who have the ability to divert possession or otherwise affect the disposition of the property that is the subject of investigation. For example, a bookkeeper in a jewelry store with access to inventory records may aid or abet a clerk who steals an expensive watch by removing the watch from the employing office's inventory records. In such a situation, it is clear that the bookkeeper effectively has "access" to the property that is the subject of the investigation. (2) As used in section 7(d)(2), property refers to specifically identifiable property, but also includes such things of value as security codes and computer data, and proprietary, financial or technical information, such as trade secrets, which by its availability to competitors or others would cause economic harm to the employing office. (f)(1) As used in section 7(d)(3), the term reasonable suspicion refers to an observable, articulable basis in fact which indicates that a particular employee was involved in, or responsible for, an economic loss. Access in the sense of possible or potential opportunity, standing alone, does not constitute a basis for "reasonable suspicion". Information from a co-worker, or an employee's behavior, demeanor, or conduct may be factors in the basis for reasonable
�
