Essay About Genetic Testing And American Management Association

Intrusive Employment: Breaching Employee Privacy Rights
Join now to read essay Intrusive Employment: Breaching Employee Privacy Rights
Intrusive Employment: Breaching Employee Privacy Rights
Christine Demark worked as a sales representative, and excelled in her position. Excelled that
is, until one day she decided to undergo genetic testing at the University of Michigan. The
conclusion of the tests was that Christine was genetically at risk for Huntington’s disease. During
the course of a phone conversation with the University doctors, a coworker overheard her and
relayed the information to Christine’s supervisor. As a result, Christine’s employer demoted her
to a customer service position, stating that her current job was too stressful, and months later
firing her altogether (Spice, 2000). While this is a sad story, stories such as Christine’s are
becoming all too familiar within the business world. Gone are the days of separation between
profession and private life. With the use of genetic testing and electronic communications
monitoring, employees’ privacy rights are fast becoming an endangered species.
Intrusive Employment 3
“Genetic tests can provide presymptomatic medical information about an individual,
including information about an individual’s increased risk of future disease, disability, or early
death” (Miller, 1998, p. 189). According to surveys from both the U.S. Department of Labor and
the American Management Association, companies using genetic testing for employment
purposes have risen from 1.6% to nearly 10% between 1982 and 1997. While employers and
insurance companies alike will argue that the reasons for these tests are well-founded,
proclaiming such tests a necessary step in fighting increasing health care costs, it does not
provide an answer to why employees are being fired over health issues.
The most dangerous aspect of this rising trend is that, although the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 restricts group insurance providers from using genetic
information to discriminate against policy holders, only about half the states in the U.S. have
laws in place to prevent employers from firing their employees-based on those same results
(Epoch Legal Information Services, 2004). “According to a 1996 Georgetown University poll of
332 families with perceived genetic risks: 22% reported they had been refused health insurance,
and 13% had been fired from their jobs based on their perceived genetic risks” (Epoch Legal
Information Services, 2004, Of Genes and Pinkslips: Genetic Testing Goes to Work, ¶ 2).
In addition to rising health care costs, employers practicing genetic testing attempt to justify
their actions by arguing that employees are protected from genetic discrimination by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); however, The National Workrights Institute states:
There are strong indications that the Americans with Disabilities Act may not provide
meaningful protection against genetic discrimination in employment, nor provide
sufficient safeguards against the use of genetic testing in the workplace. As a result of the
ADA statutory language, recent Supreme Court decisions narrowly construing the ADA
Intrusive Employment 4
definition of “disability” and the lack of deference the Court has shown to EEOC
regulations in this area (in fact, recent decisions by the Supreme Court have caused the
EEOC to revise its interpretive guidelines to Title I of the ADA), there is a substantial risk
that asymptomatic individuals are not protected from genetic discrimination in
employment under the