How much do you really know about the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act? Here's a quick quiz:
Which of the following is an unlawful request for "genetic information"?
- "Our company requires a post-offer, pre-employment medical examination that includes a complete genotype. We will need to verify that you have all 46 chromosomes but no extras. And any mutations will disqualify you from employment."
- "Our company requires a post-offer, pre-employment medical examination that includes DNA testing."
- (Asked by doctor in post-offer, pre-employment medical examination) "Oh, you're married? How is your husband's health?"
- (Asked by doctor in post-offer, pre-employment medical examination) "Have you or anyone in your family ever had any of the following conditions: heart disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, mental illness, or the heartbreak of psoriasis?" (Vintage commercial starts at 19:01:09.)
- (Said by your supervisor at work) "I am so sorry to hear that your mother has cancer. Does it run in your family?"
- (Said by your supervisor at work) "You're adopting a baby? GREAT! Did you make sure that he doesn't have any chronic health problems?" (NOTE: I'm not asking whether the question is tacky but whether it is illegal.)
- Nos. 1 and 2 only.
- Nos. 1, 2, and 4 only.
- All of the above.
"Dude. This quiz is a piece of cake."
I promise to give you the answer at the end of this post. Meanwhile, if you haven't already read about the EEOC's recent GINA settlement with Fabricut, go here and read, and you will get a great big hint THAT THE CORRECT ANSWER IS "ALL OF THE ABOVE."
Certainly 1 and 2 are obvious. That is what most people think of when they think of "genetic information." But, as I've been warning for quite some time, the definition of "genetic information" is much broader than that. Just about any request for family medical history is considered a request for "genetic information."
OK, I know what you're thinking . . .
But doesn't the Americans with Disabilities Act let you send an employee for a pre-employment physical? Yes. And what if the doctor just asks those questions and you don't even know because the doctor isn't your employee? It doesn't matter. You are still liable. And, anyway, what doctor worth his salt would not ask a patient about family medical history? You are absolutely right. If I were you, I'd write my congressperson.
Blame them. They're the ones who passed this law.
I know another thing you're thinking . . .
How can it be "genetic information" about the employee when you're asking about a spouse or an adopted child? I know! They aren't even blood relatives. That makes no sense whatsoever. I hear ya. Unfortunately, nobody asked me for my opinion.
Well, Robin, what good are you?
Not much, but I did accurately predict when GINA was new that it would become a popular "add-on" claim when the EEOC or a plaintiff was really trying to establish a violation of the ADA or another law with medical implications. Sure enough, it appears that the EEOC did exactly that in the Fabricut case. The charging party claimed that she was rejected for a job (in violation of the ADA) because the doctor determined that she had carpal tunnel syndrome, which she denied having. Then, apparently, the EEOC got her medical records and saw what the company's doctor was asking. Family medical history all over the place. So Fabricut promptly agreed to settle. Even though the company might have had some strong defenses to the ADA claims, it sounds like the EEOC had 'em on the GINA violation.
"I've been asking for 'genetic information' and didn't even know it! Aieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Here is what I'd suggest you do to have a clean GINA bill of health:
- Make sure that you understand the GINA and its requirements. Here's a place to get started, which includes links to the regulations and GINA's all-important safe harbor language. You can also go here and scroll down to Item No. 6. And you might find this helpful, too.
- Check with your health care providers and make sure they are not asking offerees or employees any questions about "family history." Better yet, instruct them in writing not to do it. Ask to see a blank copy of the medical questionnaire they use. If it has family history questions, delete them from the version used in your medical examinations. If you have given your health care providers specific instructions not to ask about family history, and they continue doing it anyway, find a new health care provider.
- Every time you send an offeree or employee for ANY legally authorized medical examination, include the "safe harbor language" in the paperwork you give to the employee. You can add this to the forms you already use, or you can hand it to the employee on a separate sheet of paper. This safe harbor language will protect your company if the health care provider "accidentally" asks questions that he shouldn't be asking. (But if you find that these "accidents" are occurring frequently, start looking for another health care provider. The EEOC has indicated that even the safe harbor language may not protect an employer whose providers are continually requesting genetic information.)
- The above suggestions apply to ALL legally authorized medical examinations that are required by employers -- post-offer, pre-employment medical examinations, requests for medical certification under the Family and Medical Leave Act, medical examinations to determine the need for a reasonable accommodation, fitness for duty certifications under the FMLA and other return-to-work authorizations, workers' comp-related medical examinations, you name it.
- OK - two exceptions. The only type of employer-mandated medical examination to which these rules do NOT apply is where the employer is requesting a medical certification for FMLA leave based on the medical condition of the employee's family member (either a "serious health condition" of the employee's spouse, parent, or child, or military caregiver leave). Of course, if the family member is the one with the medical condition, asking for the certification would by definition be an unlawful request for "genetic information." So the law makes an exception for these situations.
In case you missed it, the correct answer to the quiz was "ALL OF THE ABOVE." Did you ace it? I have no doubt!
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010