Disparate treatment, evidence, service provider's liability, private right of action.

The parties to a suit involving negligence, emotional distress and defamation of character appeal a lower court's ruling on the case. Mark Smith, a former employee of the Mechanics Lumber Company, filed suit after company officials terminated his employment. A polygraph testing firm told the company that Smith was deceptive in answering exam questions. Smith, a Multiple Sclerosis patient, argued that his medical condition and prescribed medication apparently impaired his performance. Company officials offered to schedule a second exam. Smith's medical condition prevented him from taking the second polygraph test. A short time later, the company terminated Smith's employment. Smith subsequently filed suit against his former employer and the polygraph testing service, which he claims was negligent in his performance.

A trial court denied the lumber company's motion for directed verdict. The court granted the polygraph company's motion for summary judgment concerning Smith complaint of negligent unintentional infliction of emotional distress. An appeals court affirmed the rulings. Both sides now appeal.

A split decision. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the lower court's ruling concerning the claim of negligence. The Supreme Court ruled there were aspects of Smith negligence claim that deserved to be examined. However, the lower court's ruling on the issue precluded a review of the complaint. Therefore, the Supreme Court remanded the case for appropriate review.