Genetic discrimination and the need for federal legislation

Journal of BioLaw and Business

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 22-26

  Quick, John J ^a,b  

^a Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Guedes Cole and Boniske PA   (United States)

^b Association of Trial Lawyers of America   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CIVIL RIGHTS; EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETIC PREDISPOSITION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT; LAW; LEGAL ASPECT; REVIEW; SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION; WORKPLACE; AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 1990; ARTICLE; EMPLOYMENT; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; GOVERNMENT; INDUSTRY; LEGAL APPROACH; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 1990; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; LEGAL APPROACH;

EMPLOYMENT; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; GENETIC SCREENING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT; HUMANS; INDUSTRY; LEGISLATION; PREJUDICE; STATE GOVERNMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33645789315     PISSN: 10955127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (86)

1. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 678 (1962) (Douglas, J. concurring).
2. Jeremy A. Colby, An Analysis of Genetic Discrimination Legislation Proposed by the 105th Congress, 24 AM. J.L. & MED. 443, 445 (1998).
3. Larry Gostin, Genetic Discrimination: The Use of Genetically Based Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests by Employers and Insurers, 17 AM. J.L. & MED. 109, 110 (1991).
4. Robert A. Curley, Jr. and Lisa M. Caperna, The Brave New World is Here: Privacy Issues and the Human Genome Project, 70 DEF. COUNS. J. 22, 23 (Jan. 2003).
5. Colby, supra note 2, at 445.
6. Also known as chromosomes. See Id. at 446.
7. Curley and Caperna, supra note 4, at 23.
8. Colby, supra note 2, at 446.
9. The process of mapping is the assignment of genes to specific chromosomes. Id. At 447.
10. Id.
11. Paul Steven Miller, Is There a Pink Slip in my Genes? Genetic Discrimination in the Workplace, 3 J. HEALTH CARE L. & POL'Y 225, 229 (2000).
12. See Thomas F. Wieder, Privacy Protection is Needed for DNA, 2002 L. REV. MICH. ST. U. DET. C.L. 927, 931 (2002).
13. See Gostin, supra note 3, at 110.
14. Anita Silvers and Michael Ashley Stein, An Equality Paradigm for Preventing Genetic Discrimination, 55 VAND. L. REV. 1341, 1346 (Oct. 2002).
15. Id. at 1346-47.
16. See Id. at 1347 (stating that genetic tests may indicate that hypercholestrolemia may be the cause of an individual's elevated cholesterol levels or that cystic fibrosis is the cause of an unusual respiratory infection).
17. Id.
18. Miller, supra note 11, at 231-32.
19. James P, Evans et al., The Complexities of Predictive Genetic Testing, 322 BRIT. MED. J. 1052, 1056 (2001).
20. Colby, supra note 2, at 462.
21. Jennifer Krumm, Genetic Discrimination: Why Congress Must Ban Genetic Testing in the Workplace, 23 J. LEGAL MED. 491, 496 (December 2002).
22. Id.
23. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
24. Exec. Order No. 13,145; 65 Fed. Reg. at 6,877.
25. United States Equal Employment Commission, POLICY GUIDANCE ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 13145, available at 〈http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/guidance-genetic.html〉.
26. Miller, supra note 11, at 232 (citing National Center for Genome Resources, EMPLOYERS SHOULD BE BARRED FROM ACCESSING GENETIC INFORMATION, AMERICANS SAY IN NCGR SURVEY, at 〈http://www.ncgr.org/about/news/1998/0304.html〉;
27. Stephanie Armour workers Fear Genetic Discrimination, USA TODAY, Feb. 25, 1998, at 4B);
28. See also Barbara Kate Repa, Of Genes and Pink Slips: Genetic Testing Goes to Work, at 〈http://www.hrlawinfo.com/lawguide/Privacy/ genetic_testing-at-work.asp〉.
29. Miller, supra note 11 at 236.
30. Silvers and Stein, supra note 14, at 1348.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 1349.
33. Id.
34. Gostin, supra note 3, at 118.
35. Melinda B. Kaufman, Genetic Discrimination in the Workplace: An Overview of Existing Protections, 30 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 393, 399-400 (1999).
36. Gostin, supra note 3, at 119.
37. Eric Mills Holmes, Solving the Insurance/Genetic Fair/Unfair Discrimination Dilemma in Light of the Human Genome Project, 85 KY. L.J. 503, 530 (1996-97).
38. Kaufman, supra note 33, at 400.
39. Gostin, supra note 3, at 116-17.
40. Krumm, supra note 21, at 496 (citing Paul R. Billings et al., Discrimination as a Consequence of Genetic Testing, 50 AM. J. HUM. GENETICS 476, 478 (1992)).
41. Id.
42. Gostin, supra note 3, at 116-17.
43. Miller, supra note 11, at 237.
44. Exec. Order No. 13,145; 65 Fed. Reg. at 6,877.
45. Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on Genetic Discrimination, THE WHITE HOUSE, at 〈http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/uri- res/I2R?urn:pdi://oma.eop.gov.us/2000/2/8/7.text.2〉
46. United States Equal Employment Commission, supra note 20.
47. Id.
48. Id.
49. 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
50. See Miller, supra note 11, at 237-47; Curley and Caperna, supra note 4, at 29-31; and Gostin, supra note 3, at 120-137.
51. See Silvers and Stein, supra note 14, at 1350 (citing EEOC v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, No. C01-4013 (N.D. Iowa) (filed Feb. 9, 2001)).
52. Id. However, the United States Supreme Court recently reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision on a similarly expansive reading of the ADA.
53. Chevron USA, Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73 (2002).
54. See generally Robert A. Bohrer, Echazabal, Genetic testing and Rawls: The Ethics of Protecting Workers Against Risks, 718 PLI/PAT 1019, 1023 (2002).
55. Id. at 1024.
56. Id. at 1023.
57. Id. at 1024.
58. Id.
59. Id. at 1024-25.
60. Id. at 1024. Previously, the defense was limited to when employment would constitute a "direct threat to the health and safety of "other individuals' ...." Id.
61. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
62. See generally Silvers and Stein, supra note 14, at 1361; See also Gostin, supra note 2, at 137.
63. Gostin, supra note 3, at 137-38.
64. Id. at 138-41.
65. Curley and Caperna, supra note 4, at 32.
66. In the 1970s, discrimination on the basis on carrying the sickle cell trait was done as a means of circumventing Title VII and other civil rights laws to discriminate against African-Americans, the most common carriers of the sickle cell trait. For a discussion of sickle cell classification as a form of racial discrimination, see Gostin, supra note 3, at 138-39.
67. Miller, supra note 11, at 260.
68. Broad prohibition with no employer exceptions is provided in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Texas and Oklahoma. Illinois provides exceptions based upon prevailing federal law, including the ADA. If consistent with job related activity, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Arizona and Massachusetts allow an employer to gather genetic information on its employees. See Curley and Caperna, supra note 4, at 32; and Miller, supra note 11, at 260-63. See also Colby, supra note 2, at 465-66.
69. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-28.1 (1999).
70. See generally Iowa Code Ann. § 729.6.7; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 141-H:3IV; N.Y. Exec. Laws § 296.19(c); and Wis. Stat. Ann. § 111.372(4).
71. Jay Conison, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS 306 (West Publishing Group 1998) (1993). Under an employer-sponsored health plan, the employer acts separately as both the insurer and the employer. Id.
72. 15 U.S.C. § 1012.
73. See UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Ward, 526 U.S. 358 (1999); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 743 (1985); and Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U.S. 119, 129 (1982).
74. 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.
75. For a more in-depth discussion of ERISA see, MK Gaedeke Roland, Looking for a Prince Among Frogs: Solutions to ERISA's Preemptive Effect on Improving Health Care, 47 BUFF. L. REV. 1487, 1488 (1999);
76. Shannon Turner, ERISA Preemption of Direct Liability Claims: Texas Throws Down the Gauntlet, 78 TEX. L. REV. 211, 216 (1999);
77. and Amy Shaner Korte, The Model Health Care Accountability and Information Act: Managed Care and Medical Malpractice Liability Under an Amended ERISA, 55 WASH. U. J. URB & CONTEMP. L. 161, 171 (1999).
78. 29 U.S.C. § 1181 et seq.
79. Colby, supra note 2, at 467-68.
80. Colby, supra note 2, at 462.
81. Id.
82. Id. at 462.
83. Curley and Caperna, supra note 4, at 34.
84. Krumm, supra note 21, at 500.
85. Id.
86. Curley and Caperna, supra note 4, at 31 (citing HUMAN GENOME NEWS, Analyzing Genetic Discrimination in the Workplace, remarks of EEOC Commissioner Paul Miller at the EINSHAC International Working Conversation on Enviro/Genetic Disputes and Issues, July 2001, available at 〈http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/hgn/v12n1/09workplace.html〉).