Order Code RL30006
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Genetic Information: Legal Issues
Relating to Discrimination
and Privacy
Updated May 28, 2002
Nancy Lee Jones
Legislative Attorney
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Genetic Information: Legal Issues Relating to
Discrimination and Privacy
Summary
On June 26, 2000, in a special ceremony at the White House, the completion of
the “rough draft” of the human genome was announced. This milestone, which has
been compared to the discoveries of Galileo, and other advances in genetics have
created novel legal issues relating to genetic information. The Human Genome
Project, with its goal of producing detailed maps of the 23 pairs of human
chromosomes and sequencing the three billion nucleotide bases that make up the
human genome, has been instrumental in the identification of genes implicated in
various diseases including glaucoma, colon cancer, and cystic fibrosis. With the
identification of these genes comes the hope of genetic therapies to cure disease but
this scientific accomplishment is not without potential problems. For instance the
presence of a cancer causing gene may indicate a predisposition but does not
guarantee that the person will contract the disease: How should an employer or
insurer respond? The ethical, social and legal implications of these technological
advances have been the subject of significant scrutiny and concern.
The legal implications of such information have been mainly on the state level
but there are some relevant Federal statutes. The Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996, P.L. 104-191, is the first federal law to specifically
address discrimination and insurance issues relating to genetic discrimination.
Congress is currently considering several bills concerning genetics and Senator
Daschle has indicated that passage of legislation is a priority. This report discusses
current federal law, state statutes, and current legislation. It will be updated as
needed.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Executive Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Americans with Disabilities Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
EEOC Interpretation of the ADA Regarding Genetic Discrimination . . . . . . 8
Supreme Court ADA Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
State Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislation in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

---

Genetic Information: Legal Issues Relating
to Discrimination and Privacy
Background
On June 26, 2000, in a special ceremony at the White House, the completion of
the “rough draft” of sequence of the human genome was announced. More
specifically, the scientists involved in the Human Genome Project (HGP)1 reported
that this rough draft consists of overlapping fragments covering 97% of the human
genome, and a sequencing of 85%of the human genome.2 Within the next two or
three years, the entire sequence should be complete.3 These rapid advances provide
powerful tools for information about the causes, and potentially the cures, for
diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, bipolar illness, and
asthma.
In recent testimony Dr. Francis Collins, the Director of the National Human
Genome Research Institute, described the dramatic progress of the Human Genome
Project and stated that “these revelations hold within them the promise of a true
transformation of medical practice. Quite possibly before the end of the first decade
of this new millennium, each of us may be able to learn our individual susceptibilities
to common disorders, in some cases allowing the design of a program of effective
individualized preventive medicine focused on lifestyle changes, diet and medical
surveillance to keep us healthy....These same discoveries about genetics likely will
lead us to predict who will respond most effectively to a particular drug therapy, and
who may suffer a side effect and out to avoid that particular drug.”4
1 The Human Genome Project, begun in 1990, is a 13 year effort coordinated by the U.S.
Department of Energy and the National Institutes of Health to identify all the estimated
80,000 genes in human DNA and to determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical bases
that make up human DNA, store this information in data bases, develop tools for data
analysis, and address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the
project. The Human Genome Project is funded through the Department of Energy and the
National Institutes of Health. For more detailed information see “The National Human
Genome Research Institute,” [http://www.nhgri.nih.gov] and “Human Genome Research,”
[http://www.er.doe.gov/production/ober/hug_top.html]
2 “International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Announces ‘Working Draft’ of
Human Genome,” [http://www/nhgri.nih.gov/NEWS/sequencing_consortium.html]
3 Testimony of Francis S. Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute,
National Institutes of Health, Before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee (July 20, 2000).
4 Id.

---

CRS-2
The first apparently successful genetic therapy has been recently reported5 and
in the not too distant future, the benefits of genetic therapy have been seen by some
as little short of miraculous with potential cures of major diseases such as heart
disease, and cancer, and Alzheimer’s. However, there have been numerous
ineffective efforts at gene therapy and at Senate hearings, held following the death
of a patient involved in gene therapy, Senator Frist stated that gene therapy holds
“great promise, but because gene therapy is an experimental, high risk procedure,
there is a need for vigilant oversight to ensure patient safety.”6
These scientific advances in genetics are not without other potential problems.
The ethical, social and legal implications of genetic research have been the subject
of significant scrutiny and a portion of the funds for the Human Genome Project are
set aside for use in analyzing these issues.7 As scientific knowledge about genetics
becomes increasingly widespread, numerous researchers and commentators,
including Dr. Francis Collins, have expressed concerns about how this information
is to be used.8 In recent congressional testimony, Dr. Collins stated: “while genetic
information and genetic technology hold great promise for improving human heath,
they can also be used in ways that are fundamentally unjust. Genetic information can
be used as the basis for insidious discrimination....The misuse of genetic information
has the potential to be a very serious problem, both in terms of people’s access to
employment and health insurance and the continued ability to undertake important
genetic research.”9
This concern has encompassed fears of discrimination in many aspects of life,
including employment, and health and life insurance. A study on discrimination
found that a number of institutions, including health and life insurance companies,
health care providers, blood banks, adoption agencies, the military and schools, were
reported to have engaged in genetic discrimination against asymptomatic
5 Rick Weiss, “Genetic Therapy Apparently Cures 2,” The Washington Post A-1 (April 28,
2000).
6 Testimony of Bill Frist United States Senator Tennessee Before the Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Public Health, Gene Therapy: Is
there Oversight for Patient Safety?” (February 2, 2000).
7 The group working on these issues is referred to as the Ethical, Legal and Social
Implications (ELSI) program. See [http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/ELSI].
8 Testimony by Dr. Francis Collins, Director, National Center for Human Genome
Research, Before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources (March 6, 1996).
See also, Hudson, Rothenberg, Andrews, Kahn, and Collins, “Genetic Discrimination and
Health Insurance: An Urgent Need for Reform,” 270 Science 391 (Oct. 20, 1995); Annas,
Glantz and Roche, “Drafting the Genetic Privacy Act: Science, Policy and Practical
Considerations,” 23 J. of Law, Medicine and Ethics 360 (1995); Gostin, “Genetic
Discrimination: The Use of Genetically Based Diagnostic and Prognostic Tests by
Employers and Insurers,” 17 Am. J. of Law & Med. 109 (1991); Rothstein, Mark, Genetic
Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era (1997).
9 Testimony of Francis S. Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute,
National Institutes of Health, Before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee (July 20, 2000).

---

CRS-3
individuals.10 The discriminatory practices included allegedly treating a genetic
diagnosis as a preexisting condition for insurance purposes, refusal by an adoption
agency to allow a woman at risk for Huntington’s disease to adopt based on the
woman’s genetic risk, and termination from employment after disclosure of a risk of
Huntington’s disease.11 Similarly, another study reported that twenty-two percent of
the respondents indicated that they or a family member were refused health insurance
as a result of a genetic condition.12 This study was strongly criticized by the Health
Insurance Association of America (HIAA) which has argued that there is no
evidence showing that insurers engage in genetic discrimination and that federal
legislation to prohibit discrimination based on genetic information is unnecessary.13
Ronald Adler, President of Laurdan Associates, a human resource management
consulting firm, has testified that generally employers do not currently seek
employees’ genetic information and do not plan to do so. However, he noted that
“federal legislation may still be warranted” to help allay fears that may prevent
individuals from undergoing potentially life-saving genetic tests or participate in
genetic research.14
A joint report by the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the
Department of Justice summarized the various studies on discrimination based on
genetic information and argued for the enactment of federal legislation. The report
stated that “genetic predisposition or conditions can lead to workplace
discrimination, even in cases where workers are healthy and unlikely to develop
disease or where the genetic condition has no effect on the ability to perform work”
and that “because an individual’s genetic information has implications for his or her
family members and future generations, misuse of genetic information could have
intergenerational effects that are far broader than any individual incident of
misuse.”15 Concluding that existing protections are minimal, the report went on to
10 Geller, Alper, Billings, Barash, Beckwith, and Natowicz, “Individual, Family, and
Societal Dimensions of Genetic Discrimination: A Case Study Analysis,” 2 Science and
Engineering Ethics 71 (1996). The study has been criticized by the insurance industry as
relying on anecdotal information. See American Council of Life Insurance, “Statement
Regarding the Council for Responsible Genetics ‘Study’ on Genetic Discrimination” (April
11, 1996).
11 Id.
12 Lapham, E. Virginia, Kozma, Chahira, Weiss, Joan O., “Genetic Discrimination:
Perspectives of Consumers,” 274 Science 621 (October 25, 1996).
13 “Testimony of the HIAA on Genetic Testing,” Before the Senate Committee on Labor
and Human Resources, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. (May 21, 1998), reproduced at
[http://www.hiaa.org/news/news-state/genetictesting.html]
14 “Testimony of Ronald L. Adler, President of Laurdan Associates, Inc.,”Protecting
Against Genetic Discrimination: The Limits of Existing Laws,” Before the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (Feb. 13, 2002),
reprinted at [http://labor.senate.gov/Hearings-2002/feb2002/021302wit/021302wit.htm].
15 Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Department of Justice, “Genetic Information and the Workplace,”
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
call for the enactment of legislation which states that (1) employers should not
require or request that employees or potential employees take a genetic test or
provide genetic information as a condition of employment or benefits, (2) employers
should not use genetic information to discriminate against, limit, segregate, or
classify employees, and (3) employers should not obtain or disclose genetic
information about employees or potential employees under most circumstances.16
According to the Labor Department report, employers should be able to (1) use
genetic information for monitoring for the effects of a particular substance in the
workplace under certain circumstances, and (2) disclose genetic information for
research and other purposes with the written, informed consent of the individuals.
In addition, the report states that the statutory authority of federal agencies or
contractors to promulgate regulations, enforce workplace safety and health laws, or
conduct occupational or other health research should not be limited.17
The National Council on Disability (NCD), an independent federal agency that
advises the President and Congress on issues affecting individuals with disabilities,
published a position paper arguing for the enactment of federal legislation prohibiting
genetic discrimination on March 4, 2002. The NCD argues that recent advances in
genetic research have brought an increasing potential for genetic discrimination, that
genetic discrimination is a historical and current reality, that genetic discrimination
undermines the purposes of genetic research and testing, that genetic test information
has little value for purposes of making employment decisions and insurance
decisions, and that existing laws are insufficient to protect individuals from genetic
discrimination.18
President Bush has also made the prohibition of genetic discrimination one of
the key components of the President’s health care reform agenda. The President has
indicated his support of “reasonable legislation that will make genetic discrimination
illegal.”19
It should be emphasized that legal issues relating to genetics may vary
depending on whether insurance, employment or other types of discrimination, or
medical research are involved. Approaches to addressing the issues raised in these
contexts vary from taking no legislative action, addressing certain specific concerns
(as was done in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), or more far
reaching approaches such as comprehensive legislation on genetics or legislation
focused on all medical records, including genetics.
15(...continued)
[http://www.dol.gov/dol/_sec/public/media/reports/genetics.htm] 2-3 (January 20, 1998).
16 Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Department of Justice, “Genetic Information and the Workplace,”
[http://www.dol.gov/dol/_sec/public/media/reports/genetics.htm] at 7 (January 20, 1998).
17 Id.
18 National Council on Disability, “Position Paper on Genetic Discrimination Legislation”
[http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/geneticdiscrimination_positionpaper.html]
19 “Key Components of the President’s Health Care Reform Agenda,”
[www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020301-1/html].

---

CRS-5
Generally legal issues raised regarding genetics have been based on two main
concepts: privacy and discrimination. The privacy interests of an individual in his
or her genetic information have been seen as significant and protecting these interests
is seen as making discriminatory actions based on this information less likely.
However, another approach would be to prohibit this potential misuse of the
information by prohibiting discrimination. Some statutes, like the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., take a two-pronged approach to
similar issues regarding medical information about disabilities by both protecting the
confidentiality of the information and by prohibiting discriminatory acts.
Currently there are no federal laws that directly and comprehensively address
the issues raised by the use of genetic information. There are, however, a few laws
that address parts of these issues but the only federal law that directly addresses the
issue of discrimination based on genetic information is the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act. On February 8, 2000, President Clinton issued
an executive order prohibiting discrimination against federal employees based on
protected genetic information. On December 20, 2000, the Department of Health and
Human Services issued final regulations on medical privacy which are not specific
to genetics but cover all personal health information.20 This rule went into effect
on April 14, 2001.21 In addition, many states have enacted laws which vary widely
in their approaches to genetic information.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act of 1996
P.L. 104-191, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 199622,
has been hailed as taking “important steps toward banning genetic discrimination in
health insurance” but has also been criticized as not going far enough.23 The Act
prohibits a group health plan or issuer of a group health plan from using genetic
information to establish rules for eligibility or continued eligibility and provides that
genetic information shall not be treated as a preexisting condition in the absence of
the diagnosis of the condition related to such information. It also prohibits a group
health plan or issuer of a group health plan from using genetic information in setting
a premium contribution. However, the Act would not prohibit group health plans or
issuers of plans (i.e., insurers) from requiring or requesting genetic testing, does not
require them to obtain authorization before disclosing genetic information, and does
not prevent them from excluding all coverage for a particular condition or imposing
20 65 Fed. Reg. 82460 (Dec. 20, 2000).
21 For a discussion of the rule see Gina Marie Stevens, “A Brief Summary of the Medical
Privacy Rule,” CRS Report RS20934.
22 For a general discussion of this Act see Beth Fuchs, Bob Lyke, Richard Price, and
Madeleine Smith , “The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of
1996: Guidance on Frequently Asked Questions,” CRS Report 96-805.
23 Statement of Rep. Louise Slaughter Before the House Science Subcommittee on
Technology, Hearing on Technological Advance in Genetic Testing: Implications for the
Future, September 17, 1996.

---

CRS-6
lifetime caps on all benefits or on specific benefits. In addition, this Act does not
address the issues of the use of genetic information in contexts other than health
insurance such as employment.24
Executive Order
On February 9, 2000, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13145
prohibiting genetic discrimination against employees in federal executive
departments and agencies. In announcing the executive order at a meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, the President stated that
“This extraordinary march of human understanding imposes on us a profound
responsibility to make sure that the age of discovery can continue to reflect our most
cherished values.”25 Many commentators lauded the executive order, and quoted
with approval its description as “preventive policy making– to put in place the kind
of protections that the public needs and deserves before we find ourselves in a
needless crisis situation.”26 However, it has also been criticized both on a
philosophical level27 and in the details of its coverage.28 The EEOC has issued
guidance on the executive order.29
The executive order defines “protected genetic information” as “(A) information
about an individual’s genetic tests; (B) information about the genetic tests of an
individual’s family members; or (C) information about the occurrence of a disease;
or medical condition or disorder in family members of the individual.” Current
health status information would not be protected under this executive order unless
it was derived from the information described above.
24 It should also be noted the HIPAA contains certain requirements regarding the
standardization of claims that raise potential privacy issues. HIPAA addressed these issues
by requiring either congressional action or regulatory action to protect privacy. A more
detailed discussion of this issue is contained in the section on privacy.
25 “President’s Order Bars Discrimination Based on Genetics,” Investor’s Business Daily
A9 (February 9, 2000).
26 Wendy R. Uhlmann, “When Genes are Decoded, Who Should See the Results?; Every
one of us at Risk,” The New York Times F7 (February 29, 2000).
27 Michael Kinsley, editor of Slate, an online magazine, observed that “genetic
discrimination is universal, inevitable and, in some ways, essential....Practice, practice will
get you to Carnegie Hall, but only if you’ve been born on the right bus....The world would
be a poorer place if it did not distinguish between me and Yo-Yo Ma in doling out
opportunities to be a concert cellist.” Michael Kinsley, “Genetic Correctness,” The
Washington Post A29 (April 18, 2000).
28 Mark A. Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest University, argues that the order’s
prohibition of considering predictive genetic information would not allow for the screening
of susceptibility to toxic exposure prior to working in such an environment and would not
allow for the use of genetic predispositions to future conditions that could effect job
performance. Mark A. Hall, “When Genes are Decoded, Who Should See the Results?;
Many ‘Greatly Overestimate the Risk’,” The Washington Post F7 (February 29, 2000).
29 [http://www.eeoc.gov/docs/guidance-genetic.html]

---

CRS-7
The executive order requires executive departments and agencies to implement
the following nondiscrimination requirements:
! the employing entity shall not discharge, fail or refuse to hire, or otherwise
discriminate against any employee because of protected genetic information
or because of information about a request for or receipt of genetic services;
! the employing entity shall not limit, segregate or classify employees in any
way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect that employee’s status because of
protected genetic information or because of information about a request for or
receipt of genetic services;
! the employing entity shall not request, require, collect, or purchase protected
genetic information with respect to an employee or information about a
request for or receipt of genetic services;
! the employing entity shall not disclose protected genetic information with
respect to an employee or information about a request for or receipt of genetic
services with certain exceptions;
! the employing entity shall not maintain protected genetic information or
information about a request for or receipt of genetic services in general
personnel files. Such materials shall be treated as confidential medical
records and kept separate from personnel files.
There are certain exceptions to these prohibitions. For example, the employing
entity may request or require information if such current condition could prevent the
applicant or employee from performing the essential functions of the job, or where
it is to be used exclusively to determine whether further medical evaluation is needed
to diagnose a current disease. Genetic monitoring of biological effects of toxic
substances in the workplaces are permitted in certain circumstances.
The Americans with Disabilities Act
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,
prohibits discrimination against an individual with a disability in employment, public
services, public accommodations, and communications. The threshold issue in any
ADA case is whether the individual alleging discrimination is an individual with a
disability. The act defines the term disability with respect to an individual as having
“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the
major life activities of such individual, (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C)
being regarded as having such an impairment.”30 Although the statutory language
of the ADA does not reference genetic traits, there was a discussion of the issue
30 42 U.S.C. §12102.

---

CRS-8
during congressional debate.31 So far there have been no judicial decisions but one
case was brought by the EEOC and settled. In addition, Terri Seargent filed with the
EEOC alleging genetic discrimination and received a determination on November 21,
2000 that the EEOC’s investigation supported her allegation of discrimination under
the ADA.32

EEOC Interpretation of the ADA Regarding Genetic
Discrimination
The ADA has been interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) as including genetic information relating to illness, disease, or
other disorders.33 The legislative history was cited by the EEOC in its guidance to
the definition of disability for its compliance manual. In this guidance, the EEOC
examined the definition of disability under the ADA, noting that the definition was
composed of three prongs: disability means (1) a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an individual, (2) a
record of such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment.34
It was under the third prong that the EEOC determined that discrimination based on
genetic information relating to illness, disease, or other disorders was prohibited.35
31 Rep. Owens stated that “[t]hese protections of the ADA will also benefit individuals who
are identified through genetic tests as being carriers of a disease-associated gene. There is
a record of genetic discrimination against such individuals, most recently during sickle cell
screening programs in the 1970's. With the advent of new forms of genetic testing, it is even
more critical that the protections of the ADA be in place. Under the ADA, such individuals
may not be discriminated against simply because they may not be qualified for a job
sometime in the future. The determination as to whether an individual is qualified must take
place at the time of the employment decision, and may not be based on speculation
regarding the future. Moreover, such individuals may not be discriminated against because
they or their children might incur increased health care costs for the employer.” 136 Cong.
Rec. H 4623 (daily ed. July 12, 1990) (remarks of Rep. Owens). Similarly, Rep. Edwards
and Rep. Waxman also stated that individuals who are carriers of a disease-associated gene
may not be discriminated against under the ADA. 136 Cong. Rec. H 4625 (daily ed. July 12,
1990) (Statement of Rep. Edwards); Id. at H 4627 (Statement of Rep. Waxman).
3 2 “Update on T erri Seargent’s Genetic D i s c r i mi n a t i on Case,”
[http://ww.alpha.org/newsmakers/index.htm]
33 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Compliance Manual, vol. 2, section 902,
order 915.002,902-45 (1995). It is also possible that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,may provide some protection against certain kinds of
genetic discrimination since an argument could be made that discrimination based on genetic
disorders that are racially or ethnically based, such as sickle cell disease, is prohibited under
title VII. However, there are relatively few genetic conditions that have a strong connection
with a racial or ethnic group, thus limiting the scope of potential coverage.
34 42 U.S.C. §12102(2).
35 The EEOC gave the following example of its application of the third prong of the
definition to genetic discrimination. CP’s genetic profile reveals an increased susceptibility
to colon cancer. CP is currently asymptomatic and may never in fact develop colon cancer.
(continued...)

---

CRS-9
Although this EEOC interpretation was widely heralded as a significant step for
the protection of rights for individuals whose genes indicate an increased
susceptibility to illness, disease or other disorders, it is limited in its application and
may be even more limited after the recent Supreme Court decisions on the definition
of disability.36 However, the EEOC has not withdrawn this guidance and at recent
Senate hearings, EEOC Commissioner Paul Miller stated that the ADA “can be
interpreted to prohibit employment discrimination based on genetic information.
However, the ADA does not explicitly address the issue and its protections are
limited and uncertain.” In addition, Commissioner Miller observed that even if the
ADA were found to cover genetic discrimination, the requirements of the ADA may
not protect workers from all types of genetic discrimination. He stated, “for example,
the ADA does not protect workers from requirements or requests to provide genetic
information to their employers....In addition, once the applicant is hired, the employer
may request that the employee take a medical exam, such as a genetic test, if the
employer can demonstrate that the information from that test is job related and
consistent with business necessity.”37
The first ADA case alleging genetic discrimination was filed with the EEOC by
Terri Seargent. Ms. Seargent, whose situation was extensively discussed during
Senate debate on genetic discrimination in the 106th Congress, had a promising career
as a manager for a small insurance broker in North Carolina. She had positive
35(...continued)
After making CP a conditional offer of employment, R learns about CP’s increased
susceptibility to colon cancer. R then withdraws the job offer because of concerns about
matters such as CP’s productivity, insurance costs and attendance. R is treating CP as
having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Accordingly CP is
covered by the third part of the definition of disability.
36 Prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions there were three major limitations on the EEOC
interpretation. First, the ADA specifically excludes insurance from its coverage except that
this exclusion “shall not be used as a subterfuge to evade the purposes of title I and III.” The
exact parameters of this provision, especially as it relates to genetic information, are unclear
although it would appear fair to say the nondiscrimination protections for individuals with
certain genes would be considerably stronger in the employment context than when such
individuals are being considered for insurance coverage. Second, the EEOC interpretation
is part of guidance issued in its compliance manual. Specific prohibitions of discrimination
in this area were not included in the statute and were also not part of the EEOC’s
regulations. Even if a court gives deference to the guidance as indicative of the agency’s
view of the statute, a court would not likely give such guidance the deference it would
accord to statutory or regulatory language. In addition, even assuming the ADA was found
to apply, it may not protect employees from having their employers have access to their
genetic information. Although the ADA prohibits an employer from making medical
inquiries prior to a job offer, the employer may obtain medical information in certain cases
after the offer of employment has been made. Even if the prohibitions against
discrimination in the ADA would apply, it would be difficult to prove that genetic
information was the reason for discrimination. This raises issues relating to the privacy of
genetic information which are beyond the scope of this memorandum.
37 Statement of Commissioner Paul Steven Miller, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (July
20, 2000.

---

CRS-10
performance evaluations but after medical tests determined that she had Alpha 1
Antitrypson Deficiency, a condition that affects the lungs and liver, and she began
taking expensive medication, she was terminated from her employment.38 Ms.
Seargent filed with the EEOC alleging genetic discrimination and received a
determination on November 21, 2000 that the EEOC’s investigation supported her
allegation of discrimination under the ADA.39
The EEOC settled its first court action challenging the use of workplace genetic
testing under the ADA against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF). The
settlement, announced on April 18, 2001, ended genetic testing of employees who
filed claims for work-related injuries based on carpal tunnel syndrome. EEOC
Commissioner Paul Steven Miller stated “The Commission will continue to respond
aggressively to any evidence that employers are asking for or using genetic tests in
a manner that violates the ADA. Employers must understand that basing
employment decisions on genetic testing is barred under the ADA’s “regarded as”
prong, as stated in EEOC’s 1995 policy guidance on the definition of the term
“disability.” Moreover, genetic testing, as conducted in this case, also violates the
ADA as an unlawful medical exam.”40
Supreme Court ADA Decisions
Although the combination of the ADA’s legislative history and the EEOC’s
guidance has led commentators to argue that the ADA would cover genetic
discrimination, the merit of these arguments has been uncertain since there have been
no reported cases holding that the ADA prohibits genetic discrimination. This
uncertainty has increased in light of recent Supreme Court decisions on the ADA.
The first Supreme Court ADA case to address the definition of disability was
Bragdon v. Abbott, a 1998 case involving a dentist who refused to treat an HIV
infected individual outside of a hospital.41 In Bragdon, the Court found that the
plaintiff’s asymptomatic HIV infection was a physical impairment impacting on the
major life activity of reproduction thus rending HIV infection a disability under the
ADA. In two 1999 cases the Court examined the definitional issue whether the
effects of medication or assistive devices should be taken into consideration in
determining whether or not an individual has a disability. The Court in the landmark
38 146 Cong. Rec. S6050 (daily ed. June 29, 2000)(remarks of Sen. Kennedy).
3 9 “Update on Terri Seargent’s Genetic Discrimination Case,”
[http://ww.alpha.org/newsmakers/index.htm]
40 [http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-18-01.html]
41 524 U.S. 624 (1998). For a more detailed discussion of this decision see Jones, “The
Americans with Disabilities Act: HIV Infection is Covered Under the Act,” CRS Report 98-
599 (July 10, 1998).

---

CRS-11
decisions of Sutton v. United Airlines42 and Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc,43
held, contrary to the interpretation given by the EEOC, that the “determination of
whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that
mitigate the individual’s impairment....”44 In reaching this holding, the Court looked
to the first prong of the definition of disability (having a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of an
individual) and emphasized that the phrase “substantially limits” appears in the
present indicative verb form “requiring that a person be presently — not potentially
or hypothetically — substantially limited in order to demonstrate a disability.” In
Albertsons Inc. v. Kirkingburg45 the Court held unanimously that the ADA requires
proof that the limitation on a major life activity by the impairment is substantial. The
Court in Sutton also looked at the findings enacted as part of the ADA which stated
that “some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities”
and found that this figure was inconsistent with the argument that the statute covered
individuals without looking at the mitigating effects of medications or devices. The
individualized nature of the inquiry into whether an individual was an individual with
a disability was emphasized.
Although the Court’s decision in Sutton did not turn on the third prong of the
definition of disability (being “regarded as having such an impairment”) the Court
did address the interpretation of this part of the definition. There are two ways, the
Court stated, that an individual can fall within the “regarded as” prong: (1) a covered
entity mistakenly believes that a person has a physical impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities, or (2) a covered entity mistakenly believes
that an actual impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. The
Court found that, on its own, the allegation that an entity has a vision requirement in
place does not establish a claim that the entity regards an individual as substantially
impaired in the major life activity of working. The term “substantially limits” was
regarded as significant. It requires “at a minimum, that plaintiffs allege they are
unable to work in a broad class of jobs.” The Court emphasized that it was
“assuming without deciding” that working is a major life activity and that the EEOC
regulations interpreting “substantially limits” are reasonable and found that even
using the EEOC interpretation, the plaintiffs in Sutton failed to allege adequately that
their vision is regarded as an impairment that substantially limits them in a major life
activity. Being precluded from being a global airline pilot was not sufficient since
they could obtain other, although less lucrative jobs, as regional pilots or pilot
instructors.
The “regarded as” prong was directly at issue in Murphy. In Murphy the Court
held that the fact that an individual with high blood pressure was unable to meet the
42 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
43 527 U.S. 516 (1999).
44 Sutton v. United Airlines. See also Murphy v. United Parcel Service, where the Court
held that the determination of whether the petitioner’s high blood pressure substantially
limits one or more major life activities must be made considering the mitigating measures
he employs.
45 527 U.S. 555 (1999).

---

CRS-12
Department of Transportation (DOT) safety standards was not sufficient to create an
issue of fact regarding whether an individual is regarded as unable to utilize a class
of jobs. Like Sutton, the holding in Murphy emphasized the numerous other jobs
available to the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court’s decisions on the ADA did not directly address genetic
discrimination and it is possible that the ADA could be interpreted to cover a
particular genetic defect. However, the reasoning used in the Court’s recent
decisions appears to make it unlikely that an ADA claim based on genetic
discrimination would be successful. There are several factors that lead to this
conclusion.
First, the Supreme Court in Sutton specifically struck down an interpretation by
the EEOC regarding the use of mitigating factors and raised questions concerning the
validity of the EEOC’s interpretation. The Court also found no statutory authority
for agency interpretation of the definition of disability. The EEOC had taken the
position that whether or not an individual has a disability should be determined by
what his or her condition would be without medication or an assistive device.
Rejecting this EEOC interpretation, in Sutton the Supreme Court noted that no
agency was given the authority to interpret the term “disability” but that because both
parties accepted the regulations as valid “we have no occasion to consider what
deference they are due, if any.” Similarly, in Murphy the Court clearly stated that its
use of the EEOC regulations did not indicate that the regulations were valid.
However, in its earlier decision in Bragdon v. Abbott, the Court had found its
conclusion that HIV infection was covered by the ADA to be “reinforced by
administrative guidance issued by the Justice Department....” The cases subsequent
to Bragdon did not examine this seeming contradiction so exactly how a future
decision would view EEOC regulations and guidance is uncertain. This issue is
especially important regarding potential cases of genetic discrimination since the
EEOC has published guidance indicating that the ADA covers genetic
discrimination,46 and there are no reported cases.
Similarly, the Supreme Court showed little indication to examine the legislative
history of the ADA. The Court in Sutton held that it was not necessary to consider
the legislative history of the ADA regarding the issue of whether individuals should
be examined in their uncorrected state or with the use of mitigating medications or
devices. It found that the statutory language was sufficient to support its holding on
this issue. Although the issue regarding genetic discrimination is distinct from that
of the use of mitigating medications and devices, the Court’s general reluctance to
examine legislative history in Sutton may indicate that the language on genetic
discrimination quoted above from the congressional debates also would not be
examined.
The Court’s reliance in Sutton upon the findings in the ADA that 43,000,000
Americans have one or more physical disabilities also indicates that the Court may
not find genetic defects to be covered. The number of individuals cited in the
findings as having a disability was seen by the Court as inconsistent with the
46 EEOC Compliance Manual, Vol. 2, section 902, order 915.002,902-45 (1995).

---

CRS-13
argument that the statute covered individuals whose disabilities were mitigated by
medications or devices. Since the prevalence of genetic defects is believed to be
widespread, coverage of genetic defects could arguably include almost every
individual. Thus, it is possible that the Court could use the same rationale as in
Sutton to find genetic defects not included.
In Bragdon v. Abbott, where the Court found that HIV infection was covered
under the ADA, the majority opinion spent considerable time discussing the
immediate physiological effects of the infection. This would appear to be consistent
with the holding in Sutton that the “substantially limits” definitional language
requires that the substantial limitation not be potential or hypothetical. This
reasoning could be contrasted to the situation presented by genetic defects which in
many cases do not ever manifest. Interestingly, in his dissenting opinion in Bragdon
v. Abbott, Chief Justice Rehnquist, who was in the majority in Sutton, stated that the
argument regarding coverage of HIV infection “taken to its logical extreme, would
render every individual with a genetic marker for some debilitating disease ‘disabled’
here and now because of some possible future effects.” Whether the Court would
now share the Chief Justice’s view that such coverage of genetic discrimination is an
invalid interpretation of the definition is uncertain, especially since the Court in
Bragdon was discussing the first prong of the definition, not the “regarded as” prong
which is the most likely basis for coverage of genetic defects.
In its recent cases the Court provided considerable guidance concerning the
“regarded as” prong of the definition of disability, the most likely aspect of the
definition to be used to find coverage of genetic defects. Including the requirement
that the individual be regarded as “substantially limited” in a major life activity, the
Court found that this language meant that being precluded from a particular job was
not sufficient to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working if other
jobs in the same class could be obtained. And when this specific issue was raised in
Murphy, the plaintiff was not found to be regarded as substantially limited in the
major life activity of working. The main point of this rather complicated discussion
is that making the case that one is regarded as substantially limited in a major life
activity, particularly the major life activity of working, is likely to be difficult.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions do not directly address ADA coverage
of genetic discrimination. They emphasize an individualized approach to the
determination of whether an individual has a disability under the ADA. Although an
argument could be made that the ADA would cover individuals with genetic defects
in certain cases, the Court’s most recent decisions, particularly Sutton and Murphy,
use reasoning that would make it unlikely that most ADA claims based on genetic
discrimination would be successful.47
47 In testimony before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions,
Andrew J. Imparato, the President and CEO of the American Association of People with
Disabilities testified that “the ADA as drafted does provide some protections against genetic
discrimination in employment, but the law has been interpreted by the Supreme Court and
lower federal courts in a manner which weakens its protections. Whereas the ADA can be
and has been used to stop genetic discrimination in some instances, the protections it affords
offer little security to people with genetic markers and health conditions that have not yet
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
In addition, even assuming the ADA was found to apply, it may not protect
employees from having their employers have access to their genetic information.
Although the ADA prohibits an employer from making medical inquiries prior to a
job offer, the employer may obtain medical information in certain cases after the
offer of employment has been made. Assuming that the prohibitions against
discrimination in the ADA would apply, it is difficult to prove that genetic
information was the reason for discrimination. This raises issues relating to the
privacy of genetic information.
Privacy
Although the Constitution does not expressly provide for a right to privacy, the
Supreme Court has found some right to informational privacy.48 However, these
rights are limited by judicial deference to government’s need to acquire the
information and by the fact that such a constitutional right would be limited to state
action. As a practical matter, this would mean that federal or state collections of
information may receive some constitutional protection but the collection and use of
information by private health plans or organizations would not be covered.49 Certain
federal statutes may provide some privacy protection for medical records. The
Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, prohibits the disclosure of records maintained
on individuals by federal government agencies except under certain conditions.
Subsection 552a(f)(3) allows agencies to establish special procedures for individuals
who wish to access their medical records. The intent of this provision as described
in the House report was to ensure rules so that an individual who would be adversely
affected by the receipt of such data may be apprized of it in a manner which would
not cause such adverse effects.50
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 552 et seq., establishes
a right of access to records maintained by agencies within the executive branch of the
federal government. It contains several exemptions, including one for “personnel and
medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”51 Both the Privacy Act and FOIA may,
47(...continued)
developed into full-blown debilitating conditions.” Testimony of Andrew J. Imparato,
”Protecting Against Genetic Discrimination: The Limits of Existing Laws,” Before the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (Feb.
13, 2002), reprinted at
[http://labor.senate.gov/Hearings-2002/feb2002/021302wit/021302wit.htm]
48 See e.g., Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977).
49 For a more discussion of this issue see Gostin, “Genetic Privacy,” 23 J. of Law, Medicine
& Ethics 320 (1995).
50 H.Rept. 93-1416. 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 16-17 (1974).
51 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(6).

---

CRS-15
then, provide some privacy protections for genetic information but they are limited
in their scope and would not encompass information held by a private entity.52
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) contains
requirements for the standardization of electronically transmitted health insurance
financial claims and administrative transactions, such as the submission of claims,
processing of enrollments, verification of insurance eligibility, and payment and
remittance advice. HIPAA required the Secretary of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to make recommendations to Congress by August 1997 concerning the
protection of privacy of individually identifiable health information and Congress had
until August 1999 to enact legislation on this issue. If Congress did not enact
legislation, HIPAA requires the Secretary of HHS to promulgate regulations on
privacy protections. The Secretary of HHS issued final regulations on December 20,
2000.53
The final privacy regulations, which became effective on April 14, 2001, apply
to health insurers, providers, and health care clearinghouses and require patient
consent for most sharing of personal health information. However, on March 27,
2002, the Department of Health and Human Resources proposed changes to this rule
that removed certain provisions requiring consent.54 The final regulations cover all
personal health information in paper, oral or electronic form and limit disclosure of
personal health information to the minimum amount necessary for the purposes of
the disclosure except where medical records are transferred for the purposes of
treatment. Companies that sponsor health plans are prohibited from accessing
personal health information for employment purposes unless the patient consents.
Civil money penalties are provided and egregious violations carry federal criminal
penalties of up to $250,000 and ten years in prison. Although these regulations are
general and not specific to genetics, they will have an effect on genetic information.
In the comments to the regulations, the Department noted that many commentators
requested additional protections for sensitive information, including genetic
information. In response, the Department noted that generally the regulations do not
differentiate among types of protected health information.55
52 For a discussion of recent developments in medical records privacy see Stephen Redhead,
“Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the December 2000 Federal
Regulation,” CRS Report RS20500.
53 65 Fed. Reg. 82461 (Dec. 20, 2000). For a more detailed discussion see Stephen
Redhead, “Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the December 2000 Federal
Regulation,” CRS Rept. RS20500 and Gina Marie Stevens, “A Brief Summary of the
Medical Privacy Rule,” CRS Report RS20934.
54 See [http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa]. For a discussion of the changes see Gina Marie
Stevens, “A Brief Summary of the Medical Privacy Rule,” CRS Report RS20934.
55 65 Fed. Reg. 82731 (Dec. 20, 2000).

---

CRS-16
State Statutes
Although there is limited federal law relating to the use of genetic information,
many states have enacted statutes dealing with various aspects of these issues. Early
state statutes focused on particular genetic conditions. The first statute to prohibit
discrimination based on a genetic trait was enacted in North Carolina and prohibited
employment discrimination based on the sickle cell trait. In 1991 Wisconsin became
the first state to enact a comprehensive law to prohibit discrimination based on
genetic test results. Currently, the states vary in their provisions with some
prohibiting discrimination in employment while others deal solely with
discrimination in insurance. A recent survey of state law found that thirty states have
enacted genetic nondiscrimination in employment laws.56 A related survey found that
thirty-four states have passed laws strictly prohibiting the use of genetic information
for risk selection and risk classification purposes.57 One of the most contentious
aspects of the state legislation has been the definition of genetic information. Some
states, like Michigan, limit nondiscrimination protections to the results of genetic
tests. On the other hand, New Jersey prohibits the use of information about genes,
gene products or inherited characteristics that may derive from an individual or
family member. This would include information such as family history which is
often used in insurance underwriting.
Although these state statutes do provide some types of coverage, they do not
cover employer self-funded plans providing private health insurance for employees
and their dependents. These plans are exempt from state insurance laws due to the
preemption provision in the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).58 Since it has been estimated that over one-third of the nonelderly insured
population obtains its coverage through self-funded plans and these types of plans are
increasing, the ERISA exemption limits the application of state laws significantly.59
Legislation in the 106th Congress
Although legislation specifically relating to genetic discrimination and privacy
was not enacted during the 106th Congress, a provision relating to health insurance
was considered in the conference on H.R. 2990. The Senate amended H.R. 2990 as
passed by the House, striking all the language after the enacting clause and
56 National Conference of State Legislatures Genetics Tables, State Genetics Employment
Laws, [http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/ndiscrim.htm]. See also, “Genetic
I n f o r m a t i o n a n d t h e W o r k p l a c e : E n a c t e d L e g i s l a t i o n , ”
[http://www.nhgri.nih.gov/Policy_and_public_affairs/Legislation/workplace.htm].
57 National Conference of State Legislatures Genetics Tables, State Genetic
Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance,
[http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics/ndishlth.htm].
58 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1145.
59 Hudson, “Genetic Discrimination and Health Insurance: an Urgent Need for Reform,”
270 Science 391 (1995); Rothenberg, “Genetic Information and Health Insurance: State
Legislative Approaches,” 23 J. of Law, Med. & Ethics 312 (1995).

---

CRS-17
substituting the language in S. 1344. This Senate bill would have amended ERISA,
the Public Health Services Act and the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit health
plans or health insurance issuers, in both group and individual markets, from using
predictive genetic information to set premiums. It also contained confidentiality
provisions.60
Senator Daschle had offered a more comprehensive amendment to the FY 2001
Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, S. 2553. It would have prohibited insurance
companies from raising premiums or denying coverage on the basis of genetic tests
and would have also barred employers from using predictive genetic information to
make employment-related decisions. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 54-
44.
Legislation in the 107th Congress
Legislation relating to genetic discrimination and privacy has continued to be
a major issue in the 107th Congress. The Senate version of the Patient Protection Act,
S. 1052, which passed the Senate on June 29, 2001, contains an amendment
prohibiting certain genetic discrimination by group health plans and health insurance
issuers. It also contains a provision relating to confidentiality.61 Congress has not
yet appointed a conference committee.
Other Senate legislation has taken various approaches. S. 318, introduced by
Senator Daschle, would prohibit genetic nondiscrimination in health insurance and
employment. S. 1995 sponsored by Senators Snowe, Frist and Jeffords, would also
prohibit genetic discrimination in insurance and employment but is less broad that
S. 318. S. 19, the Protecting Civil Rights for all Americans Act introduced by
Senator Daschle, contains nondiscrimination provisions relating to insurance and
employment. Senator Snowe has also introduced S. 382, the Genetic Information
Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 2001, which would prohibit
discrimination in insurance. S. 450, the Financial Institution Privacy Protection Act
of 2001 introduced by Senator Nelson, contains provisions protection the privacy of
health information, including genetic information.62
In the House, Representative Slaughter has introduced H.R. 602, the Genetic
Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act, which would prohibit
genetic discrimination in insurance and employment. H.R. 602 is paralleled by S.
318 in the Senate
60 For a more detailed discussion see Judy Hearne and Hinda Chaikind, “Side-by-Side
Comparison of H.R. 2990 and the Senate Amendment for Patient Protection,” CRS Report
RL30144.
61 For a more detailed discussion of the Patient Protection Legislation see Jean Hearne and
Hinda Ripps Chaikind, “Patient Protection and Managed Care: Legislation in the 107th
Congress,” CRS Issue Brief IB98017.
62 For a more detailed discussion of this legislation see M. Maureen Murphy, “Privacy
Protection for Customer Financial Information,” CRS Report RS20185.

---