Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:43:29.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Ethics

GINA, the ADA, and Genetic Discrimination in Employment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mark A. Rothstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , Winter 2008 , pp. 837 - 840
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Public Law 110–233, 122 Stat.881 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 U.S.C. §§ 1181–1191C.Google Scholar
A compilation of these state laws is maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, and appears at <www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics.htm> (last visited October 7, 2008).+(last+visited+October+7,+2008).>Google Scholar
GINA § 2(5); Rothstein, M. A., “Is GINA Worth the Wait?” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 1 (2008): 174–178.Google Scholar
Hudson, K. L., Holohan, M. K. and Collins, F. S., “Keeping Pace with the Times — The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,” New England Journal of Medicine 358, no. 25 (2008): 2661–2663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, M. A., “Putting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in Context,” Genetics in Medicine 10, no. 9 (2008): 655–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GINA § 102(b).Google Scholar
Id., at § 202.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.Google Scholar
Id., at § 12112(d)(3).Google Scholar
Rothstein, M. A. and Talbott, M. K., “Compelled Disclosure of Health Information: Protecting Against the Greatest Potential Threat to Privacy,” Journal of the American Medical Association 295, no. 24 (2006): 2882–2885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).Google Scholar
Public Law 110–325, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. (2008).Google Scholar
ADA Amendments Act of 2008, §§ 2(b) (2) to (b)(5). Among the restrictive decisions mentioned by Congress are Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).Google Scholar
Hoffman, S., “Settling the Matter: Does Title I of the ADA Work?” Alabama LawGoogle Scholar
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 § 3(4) (A).Google Scholar
EEOC Compliance Manual, vol. 2, EEOC Order 915.002, Definition of the Term “Disability,” at 902–45, reprinted in Daily Lab. Rep., Mar. 16, 1995, at E-1, E-23.Google Scholar
See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (asymptomatic, HIV-positive patient denied dental services in dentist's office was covered under Title III of the ADA because, for her, being HIV- positive was a substantial limitation on the major life activity of reproduction).Google Scholar
See ADA Amendments Act of 2008 § 6(a).Google Scholar
GINA § 211.Google Scholar
Id., at § 102, 210.Google Scholar
Id., at § 201.Google Scholar
Id., at § 210.Google Scholar
Id., at § 201(7)(A).Google Scholar
Id., at § 201(7)(b).Google Scholar
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j).Google Scholar
GINA § 213.Google Scholar
Id., at § 211.Google Scholar