Search

Abstract: May 21, 2018, marks the tenth anniversary of the signing into law of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The Congressional deliberations for GINA were long and difficult. The original bill was introduced in 1995, and for many years, it did not look as if the bill would ever emerge from committee. Several of its provisions raised concerns for insurers, employers, and other stakeholders. After thirteen years, the controversial provisions were either deleted, revised, or clarified. At this ten‐year mark, it is appropriate to take stock of GINA. In light of GINA's glacial legislative history, it is reasonable to start thinking about the necessity, wisdom, and feasibility of amending GINA or enacting new legislation to address unresolved or emerging issues of genetic discrimination and trends in genetics, genomics, precision medicine, and related technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two cases in 2012 involved employment discrimination claims. In one, a Catholic diocese had refused to renew the contract of a teacher who had sought in vitro fertilization. In another, earlier case, a Lutheran elementary school had terminated the contract of a teacher for 'damaging her working relationship' with the school by 'threatening to take legal action' when she was not permitted to return to work after disability leave related to narcolepsy. In both cases, the employers have argued that the employee's discrimination claims should be dismissed solely because of the religious character of the employer organization. The specific legal defenses in each suit differ somewhat, but ultimately they both rely on the First Amendment to exempt religious employers from civic responsibilities imposed by law on other private employers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]