Topic Genetics, Jobs and your Rights
Type Essay
Level University
Style APA
Sources 2
Language English(U.S.)
Description
The lesson explores the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), called the “first civil rights legislation of the 21st century” by former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. Learning about the history of genetic discrimination in the workplace, along with the progress being made to ensure workers do not have information about their DNA used inappropriately, is key to seeing the potential of personal genetics come to fruition. One of the major hopes around the passage of GINA is that people will feel more confident participating in genetic research knowing they now have federal privacy protections.
GINA, which was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush, has two main provisions. First, it forbids employers to use genetic information to make decisions about hiring, firing and promotion. Second, GINA forbids group and individual health insurers from using genetic information to adjust premiums, add or drop people from policies or deny coverage. GINA protects a person’s genetic information revealed when a person seeks genetic testing or participates in a research study. It also protects a person’s family medical history, including a family member’s genetic information. For example, an employer could not ask an employee if Huntington’s disease runs in his or her family. Interestingly, GINA does not cover people serving in the military or extend protections to those seeking life or long-term disability insurance. The Genetics and Public Policy Center has developed an extensive set of resources to better understand GINA: www.dnapolicy.org/gina/gina.html.
In 2015, the first lawsuit filed under GINA went to court. As described in the Washington Post on May 30th, 2015 in the article “Test for ‘Devious Defecator’ was Unlawful, Judge Rules,” the legal issue started when a grocery warehouse company realized it had an employee who “began “habitually defecating in one of its warehouses.” To solve the mystery, the Rev. 2015 www.pgEd.org 2 company requested some of its employees submit to cheek swabbing to compare their cheek cell DNA to DNA from the “offending fecal matter” left in the warehouse. The two men whose DNA was requested in the company’s investigation sued under the GINA provision that forbids an employer from requesting or requiring employee DNA. The plaintiffs, Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds, were awarded $2.25 million in damages.
Many feel that the passage of GINA in advance of widespread access to genetic testing was a progressive, forward thinking plan that serves to protect people. GINA also recognizes that a key to genetic research is for people to be willing to participate and feel confident in sharing their DNA with scientists. Only a few cases of genetic discrimination received prominent media attention in the years leading up to the passage of GINA, and thus far a small number of claims have been made since GINA was adopted. Many of the lawsuits illuminate the fact that genetic testing is often complex and inconclusive, and that many medical conditions cannot be easily identified as a result of genetic analysis.
Genetic tests could protect workers from harm if a previously unknown condition, such as a heart condition, were uncovered through testing; however, employers are not able to offer, require or consider such a test under GINA in the context of hiring, firing or promoting an employee. National Football League player Ryan Clark had been diagnosed as a child with the genetic condition sickle cell trait (SCT), putting him at increased risk for harmful complications under certain extreme conditions, such as low oxygen levels. On one occasion, he became severely ill and required emergency surgery as a result of playing a football game at high altitude. Going forward, Clark and his coaches agreed that, out of an abundance of caution, he should not play at Mile High Stadium in Denver because of the high altitude. This serves as an example of a scenario in which genetic information can be useful to make work-related decisions about health. However, it is important to understand that Clark’s team did not require him to have genetic testing; in fact, it is likely that his condition would be protected under other federal anti-discrimination laws. Clark came forward willingly with information related to his genetic make-up and health, and did not experience any mistreatment from his employer as a result.
Since GINA was passed, much has been written to summarize the history of genetic discrimination and to explain the law itself: Genetic Alliance: Genetic Discrimination.
Read the following short article that explains some basic information about background about GINA.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/25/nation/na-genes25
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/30/test-for-devious-defecator-was-unlawful-judge-rules/
Read the articles in this week’s Genetics, Jobs and your Rights folder.
Summarize the main ideas of TWO of the four subjects. In your summary answer the following questions:
How did the company use or try to use genetic information about its employees or job applicants?
Was a person fired or not hired because of a genetic test or medical condition?
Was there a lawsuit? If so, what was the result? Was an employee rehired, was there a settlement, etc.?
Is it possible for you to put yourself in the shoes of the employer in any of the cases? Describe the employer’s viewpoint on the case. Do you agree with how the case you studied was resolved? Why or why not?
Spacing Double
Pages 2
