Monthly Law Journal Article: Genetic Information Privacy, 2010 (8) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.

     A number of police officers claimed that two other officers violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they complied with a court order to obtain DNA samples from them to exclude them as possible contributors of DNA at a crime scene. The samples were of saliva, obtained by use ol a mouth swab. A federal appeals court ruled that the court order in question satisfied the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, and that no undue intrusion occurred as the use of buccal swabs was brief and minimal, intrusions that involve almost no risk, trauma, or pain. As to a reasonable expectation of privacy, it was reasonable to require officers to produce such samples to to demonstrate that DNA left at a crime scene was not theirs and was not the result of inadvertent contamination of the crime scene by on-duty officers. Bill v. Brewer, #13-15844, 799 F.3d 1295 (9th Cir. 2015).
      The plaintiff presented no real evidence that a fire department requested, required, or purchased his genetic information, or discriminated against him on the basis of genetic information in violation of the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-1. The trial court did not erroneously conclude that the employer's actions in placing him in administrative duty assignments were motivated by his refusal to take a stress test, and not in unlawful retaliation for his opposition to practices prohibited by GINA. The motivation was ensuring compliance with the department's Wellness Program and furthering its goals, and was also not motivated by national origin discrimination. Summary judgment in favor of the employer was upheld. Ortiz v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept. #15-50341 2015 U.S. App. Lexis 20014 (4th Cir.).
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issues final regulations, 75 Fed. Reg. 68912 (Nov. 9, 2010), implementing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.
     House of Representatives agrees to a Senate amendment to H.R. 493 (110th Congress), to prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment. It passed by a vote of 414 to 1, clearing the measure for the President. Employers, as defined in §701(b) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and §304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, may not decline to hire or discharge any employee, or to otherwise to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment of the employee, because of genetic information. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008; an overview of genetic discrimination is at http://www.genome.gov/10002077
     EEOC and a multistate employer settle a class action lawsuit challenging genetic testing. 36 workers to receive $2.2 million. EEOC v. BNSF Rwy., #02cv456 (E.D. Wis. 2002); EEOC v. BNSF Rwy., #01cv04013, 1 ABA Journal e-Report 21 (N.D. Iowa 2002). [2002 FP Aug]
     Louisiana bans employment decisions based on genetic information. State employees not covered. S.B. 651, 39 (1914) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 647 (2001). {N/R}
     Employer agrees to end its practice of genetic-testing of employees who report on-the-job injuries. 35 workers who had nonconsensual tests after they complained of repetitive motion injuries can bring individual claims of up to $300,000. EEOC v. Burlington NSF RR, #CO1-4013-MWB (D. Iowa 2001).
     President Clinton bans genetic testing and data collection in federal employment. Executive Order #13145, 68 Law Week 2474 (2/8/2000). [2000 FP 54]
     Equal Employment Opportunity Cmsn. issues policy guidance on the use of employee genetic information by federal agencies; see www.eeoc.gov/docs/guidance-genetic.html {N/R}
     Massachusetts enacts a genetic testing and privacy protection law. Ch. 111 Mass. Gen. Laws Sec. 70G. {N/R}
     Articles: “Symposium on genetic privacy,” 9 articles on laws, insurance, privacy, etc., 40 (1) Jurimetrics (ABA) 1-152, (1999), Amer. Bar Assn. Sci. & Techn. Sec. {N/R}
     Article: “Genetic privacy and discrimination: a survey of state legislation,” 39 (3) Jurimetrics (ABA) 317-326 (1999), Amer. Bar Assn. Sci. & Techn. Sec. A comparison of the 44 states that had genetic privacy and/or discrimination legislation as of Jan. 1999. {N/R}
     California pays $2.2 mil. to settle with university employees and applicants who were secretly tested for their propensity to develop sickle cell anemia. Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, 135 F. 3d 1260 (9th Cir. 1998; settled 1999). {N/R}
     Arizona bans insurance tests without informed consent. Ariz. Rev. Stat. 20448.02; 8 FEP Manual (BNA) 453-1271. [1997 FP 101]