Background of the Disability and Genetic Information Discrimination Case
According to the lawsuit, the EEOC claimed that the company not only illegally inquired about employee disabilities and genetic information but also pressured employees to use its own pharmacy services. Specifically, the pharmacy asked employees and applicants about their hemophilia, their children’s hemophilia, and the medications they or their children took. For the most part, this information would be used to unlawfully pressure employees to use its pharmacy services. The EEOC believes this occurred because hemophilia medications are expensive, and it would help the company’s bottom line. Meanwhile, employees who refused were fired or laid off. In contrast, employees who used the pharmacy for hemophilia medications kept their jobs.The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Signed into law in 1990, the ADA is a federal law that protects the civil rights of individuals with disabilities. The ADA forbids discrimination in the workplace and other sectors of society against people living with disabilities. Covered individuals may show they have a disability in one of three ways:- they have a physical or mental condition that substantially limits a major life activity (walking, talking, seeing, learning, etc.)
- a person has a history of disability (for example, a cancer that is in remission)
- this person is subject to an adverse employment action, and their impairment is not transitory or minor
- not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less), or
- minor (even if he or she does not have such an impairment).
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)
GINA took effect on November 21st, 2009, and prohibits genetic information discrimination in employment. In general, the rule defines “genetic information” as information about:- a disease or disorder in family members (family history);
- an individual’s genetic tests;
- genetic tests of an individual’s family members;
- tests of any fetus of an individual or family member; or
- any request for or receipt of genetic services, or
- participation in genetic testing or genetic counseling by an individual or family member.
Penalties in the Disability and Genetic Information Discrimination Case
Markedly, the alleged violations of the ADA and GINA occurred while the pharmacy was under prior ownership. The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. In addition to the $515,000 in monetary relief, the settlement agreed to by the new owners requires the company to:- not to employ or contract with the company’s prior CEO and owner,
- refrain from taking adverse employment actions against employees based on their non-use of the company’s pharmacy,
- train employees on the ADA and GINA, and
- survey employees on their treatment in the workplace.