Subscribe to the BioNews newsletter for free

Login
Advanced Search

Search for
BioNews

Like the Progress Educational Trust on Facebook


 


 

'Devious defecator' test violated US genetic discrimination law

08 June 2015

By Chee Hoe Low

Appeared in BioNews 805

A company that conducted genetic tests on its employees for a disciplinary investigation violated US genetic anti-discrimination law, an Atlanta judge has ruled.

Supervisors of a grocery goods warehouse were concerned when a mysterious employee began 'habitually defecating' in the warehouse. The warehouse launched an investigation and narrowed down the suspects to two employees based on their working schedules. Both the employees, Dennis Reynolds and Jack Lowe, were then asked to submit cheek swabs for genetic testing. Fearing that they might lose their job, both men complied with the request.

The result of the genetic tests showed that they were innocent - their DNA did not match that in the faeces. However, they decided to sue their employer after word spread and both men became the objects of humiliating jokes.

Reynolds and Lowe argued that the company had violated the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), which makes it 'an unlawful employment practice for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee'.

Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, the company running the warehouse, objected, saying that the purpose behind GINA is to deter genetic discrimination in an employment context. It argued that since the test used in this case, the Short Tandem Repeat (STR) Analysis, was not capable of showing the employee's genetic predispositions to diseases, its actions fell short of violating GINA's intent.

Federal district judge Amy Totenberg disagreed, ruling in favour of the employees. Following a detailed analysis of the relevant provisions in GINA, she noted the plain and unambiguous language used meant that it covers all kinds of situations where a genetic test is used, no matter what the employer's intent was in obtaining such genetic samples.

Judge Totenberg also rejected Atlas's arguments that STR analysis was not 'genetic test' as defined under GINA, and found Atlas's remaining argument to be 'unpersuasive'. She granted summary judgment in the employees' favour and ordered a trial on damages before a jury, scheduled to take place at another date.

Speaking to The New York Times, Professor Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown University commented: 'It's really a bizarre case... But beyond the comical it touches on some quite serious issues. Anyone in the future thinking about using a genetic test in ways that can embarrass or harm an individual will have to confront the fact that it violates federal law.'

'While the employer here was taking the DNA for identification purposes, once it gained access it could have theoretically tested for all kinds of other things, including issues related to health, and used that information to discriminate,' said Professor Jessica Roberts of the University of Houston Law Center.

The 'devious defecator', as Judge Totenberg referred to the suspect, was never identified.

SOURCES & REFERENCES
The New York Times | 29 May 2015
 
Barrett & Farahany LLP | 05 May 2015
 
The Washington Post | 30 May 2015
 
GenomeWeb | 01 June 2015
 

RELATED ARTICLES FROM THE BIONEWS ARCHIVE

13 March 2017 - by Rebecca Carr 
A bill outlawing genetic discrimination has been passed by Canada's House of Commons, adding genetic characteristics as a protected ground under their Human Rights Act...
13 March 2017 - by Jennifer Willows 
A bill currently passing through the US House of Representatives may mean that employees will have to share their genetic information with their employers...
08 February 2016 - by Ryan Ross 
The parents of a child carrying genetic markers for cystic fibrosis are suing a school for alleged discrimination and unlawful disclosure of personal information...
05 October 2015 - by Terry Vrijenhoek 
A recent case in the Netherlands, in which a young woman got hereditary breast cancer because she was unaware that her deceased aunt had a breast cancer gene, has sparked a debate in the country over who is responsible for passing on such information - patients or doctors...

14 July 2014 - by Rebecca Carr 
Canada's Office of the Privacy Commissioner has issued a statement urging the life and health insurance industry to refrain from asking applicants for access to existing genetic test results...
22 November 2010 - by MacKenna Roberts 
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws in the US, has issued its 'final rule' guidelines clarifying how federal laws should operate to prevent job discrimination on the basis of genetic information....
02 July 2010 - by Catherine Casserley 
People with a genetic predisposition to health problems may experience prejudice from employers, prospective employers or insurers due to a perception that they will develop a condition that could seriously affect their work and life. But can present UK legislation protect them against this potentially discriminatory treatment given that it is based on perceived - not actual - disability?
23 March 2009 - by MacKenna Roberts 
Researchers at the University of Tasmania, Australia, have conducted the world's first study to have verified incidents of genetic discrimination and warn that such incidents are likely to increase without better safeguards. The five-year study surveyed 1,000 individuals who have had genetic testing during the past ten...
06 May 2008 - by MacKenna Roberts 
Following the Senate's unanimous approval the previous week, the US House of Representatives, on Thursday, almost-unanimously (414-1) passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ('GINA'), providing final Congressional support for legislation that prohibits genetic discrimination by employers, insurers and unions. The bill (HR 493), which is hailed...

HAVE YOUR SAY
Be the first to have your say.

You need to or  to add comments.

By posting a comment you agree to abide by the BioNews terms and conditions


- click here to enquire about using this story.

Published by the Progress Educational Trust

CROSSING FRONTIERS

Public Conference
London
8 December 2017

Speakers include

Professor Azim Surani

Professor Magdalena Zernicka-Goetz

Professor Robin Lovell-Badge

Sally Cheshire

Professor Guido Pennings

Katherine Littler

Professor Allan Pacey

Dr Sue Avery

Professor Richard Anderson

Dr Elizabeth Garner

Dr Andy Greenfield

Dr Anna Smajdor

Dr Henry Malter

Vivienne Parry

Dr Helen O'Neill

Dr César Palacios-González

Philippa Taylor

Fiona Fox

Sarah Norcross

Sandy Starr


BOOK HERE

Good Fundraising Code

Become a Friend of PET HERE and give the Progress Educational Trust a regular donation