1. Did the congressional Office of Technology Assessment Memorandum conclude that the evidence established the scientific validity of polygraph tests for personnel security screening?
2. Does the city believe that polygraph tests encourage applicants to be candid in responding to questions on the PDQ?
3. Was it important to the outcome of this case that the plaintiffs had the burden of proof?

[Pennsylvania law forbids the use of polygraph testing for preemployment screening by any private or public employer. An exception exists, however, for public law enforcement agencies. The city of Philadelphia police and prison departments base their hiring on the results of a competitive civil service examination, with individuals passing this test being placed on a certified eligibility list. As openings occur, individuals ranked high on the eligibility lists are notified and must then pass a number of additional tests before being found qualified for employment. These additional tests include a medical examination; a psychiatric examination; a background investigation; and, usually last in the process, a polygraph test. As part of the background investigation, candidates must fill out a Personal Data Questionnaire (PDQ), which includes questions about family and financial status; driving record; educational and employment history; criminal record; use of alcoholic beverages; and the use, sale, and possession of illicit drugs. Candidates are given prior notification of the content of the PDQ, including the questions relating to illicit drugs. Candidates are also informed that deception or falsification in answering PDQ/polygraph questions may result in rejection. The police and prison departments will hire otherwise qualified individuals who admit that they have used or possessed drugs over six months before completing the PDQ and taking the polygraph. The plaintiffs claim that the use of the polygraph test results to deny them employment deprives them of their constitutional rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal protection of the law. After a bench trial, the district court held in favor of the plaintiffs and the city appealed.]
STAPLETON, C. J.…
I.
… The polygraph testing procedures currently used by both the police and prison departments were developed in 1983 in the course of settling class actions by blacks and Hispanics who had brought suit alleging that the Philadelphia Police Department's hiring and promotion policies were discriminatory.
These settlements require the above-described prior notification concerning the PDQ/polygraph questions, and require that if during the test the polygraph examiner finds the applicant "deceptive," the applicant must be told immediately and given a chance to explain, deny, or admit the deception. If the applicant denies being deceptive, or if the explanation is found unsatisfactory by the examiner, the applicant must have the opportunity to retake the test with a second examiner. The second examiner does not review the results of the first prior to readministering the polygraph. If the second examiner finds no deception, the applicant is considered to have passed; if the second examiner also finds the applicant deceptive, that finding is ordinarily final and preclusive of employment. The applicant may, however, appeal to either the Police Department's Review Panel or to the Superintendent of Prisons or the prison review panel, and the reviewers may decide to give the applicant the opportunity to take a third test. If the applicant is found deceptive on a third test, he or she will not be hired. Deception is found on about half of all the tests given.
During a pre-test interview, applicants are asked if there is any other information they would like to provide. During a post-test review, if deception is indicated, they are asked again if there is any information they are withholding. Admissions to disqualifying information were made during these interviews by 315 of the 1028 applicants for positions with the Police Department in 1985, and 251 of the 619 applicants in 1986.
… The results of the tests are not made public, but are used only within the departments for evaluating the suitability of the applicant for employment.

There is considerable controversy about the validity and reliability of polygraph testing. The polygraph measures stress or anxiety, which in many cases may not correlate very well with deception. In 1983, Congress' Office of Technology Assessment put out a Technical Memorandum on polygraph testing, which read in part as follows:
There are two major reasons why an overall measure of validity is not possible. First, the polygraph test is, in reality, a very complex process that is much more than the instrument. Although the instrument is essentially the same for all applications, the types of individuals tested, training of the examiner, purpose of the test, and types of questions asked, among other factors, can differ substantially. A polygraph test requires that the examiner infer deception or truthfulness based on a comparison of the person's physiological responses to various questions…. Second, the research on polygraph validity varies widely in terms of not only results, but also in the quality of research design and methodology. Thus, conclusions about scientific validity can be made only in the context of specific applications and even then must be tempered by the limitations of available research evidence.
… OTA concluded that the available research evidence does not establish the scientific validity of the polygraph test for personnel security screening.