EEOC’s 1st Genetic Discrimination Class Action

May 19, 2013 by Leave a Comment

Update: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled this case on Jan. 10, 2014 when Founders Pavilion Inc.  agreed to a five-year consent decree in which it will provide a fund of $110,400 for distribution to 138 individuals who were asked for their genetic information and $259,600 to five individuals whom the EEOC alleged  were fired or denied hire in violation of the ADA or Title VII.

IGenesmagine that an employer could ask applicants  about their family’s medical history: “Do you have a parent or grandparent who suffered from epilepsy. sickle-cell anemia Huntington’s Disease, etc.?”

Why would an employer ask such a question? To find out if the applicant could have a genetic predisposition for a disease that could lead to higher medical expenses down the road. Many employers would simply throw the application into the garbage if an applicant answered the question affirmatively. 

So-called “genetic discrimination”  has been illegal since the  Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) was signed into law by former President George W. Bush  on May 21, 2008.  However, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the authority responsible for enforcing GINA, has done little to enforce it.  Until now.

One of the six national priorities identified in the  EEOC’s strategic plan is  to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, including the problem of genetic discrimination.

 The EEOC filed and settled its first GINA lawsuit on the same day earlier this month when it reached a consent decree with a Tulsa, Oklahoma company,  Fabicut, Inc.   Now the EEOC  has filed its second federal GINA lawsuit and its first Class Genetic Information Discrimination Suit.

Violations

The EEOC alleges that  Founder’s Pavilion, Inc., a  Corning, NY, nursing and rehabilitation center, violated GINA by asking for genetic information during the hiring process. Founders is also charged with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act  (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Founders allegedly conducted post-offer, pre-employment medical exams of applicants, which were repeated annually if the person was hired. As part of this exam, Founders requested family medical history, a form of prohibited genetic information.

The lawsuit alleges that Founders fired two women because of perceived disabilities and fired another employee after it refused to accommodate her during her probationary period,  all in violation of the ADA.

Founders also allegedly either refused to hire or fired three women because they were pregnant, in violation of Title VII.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit in federal court after it was unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement with Founders. 

GINA

GINA prevents employers from demanding genetic information, including family medical history, and using that information in the hiring process.

“GINA applies whenever an employer conducts a medical exam, and employers must make sure that they or their agents do not violate the law,” said Elizabeth Grossman, the regional attorney in the EEOC’s New York District Office. “Here, not only did the employer ask for prohibited information, it also discriminated against individuals with disabilities or perceived disabilities as well as pregnant women.”

GINA also forbids unions and labor organizations from discriminating on the basis of genetic information.  

Because some genetic traits are most prevalent in particular groups, members of a particular group may be stigmatized or discriminated against as a result of that genetic information. This form of discrimination was evident in the 1970s, which saw the advent of programs to screen and identify carriers of sickle-cell anemia, a disease which afflicts African-Americans.  In the early 1970s, some state legislatures began mandating genetic screening of all African-Americans for sickle-cell anemia, leading to discrimination and unnecessary fear.

Furthermore, genetic history does not  always equal genetic future. As a result of rapid advances in technology, there is far less certainty today that any individual will inherit  or be incapacitated by a genetic disease.

 * Patricia G. Barnes is the author of Surviving Bullies, Queen Bees & Psychopaths in the Workplace.

Filed Under: DISPATCHES, EEOC Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

EEOC Tackles Ageism in Academia

May 3, 2012 by 7 Comments

NOTE: Marymount Manhattan College subsequently entered a consent decree with the EEOC settling the law suit discussed below. Marymount agreed to pay $125,000 to Patricia Catterson and  to comply with the requirements of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The decree also requires monitoring and training on anti-discrimination law. The decree will last for four years.  

It appears that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finally may be cracking down on what some say is blatant, rampant and unchecked age discrimination in academia.

The EEOC has filed an age discrimination lawsuit against an elite private liberal arts college, Marymount Manhattan College of New York City, because it allegedly refused to hire a choreography instructor for a tenure track assistant professorship because of her age.

Marymount initially selected a 64-year-old choreography instructor and two other applicants as finalists for an assistant professorship in dance composition.  After determining that the 64-year-old was the leading candidate, the EEOC said, Marymount’s search committee expanded its search to include a less qualified, 37-year-old applicant as a fourth finalist because it considered her to be “at the right moment of her life for commitment to a full-time position.”  Marymount hired the 37-year-old applicant.

Last year, Nicholas Spaeth, 62, the former state attorney general for North Dakota, filed several groundbreaking lawsuits against law schools, including the Michigan State University College of Law in East Lansing, Michigan, for  allegedly violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Spaeth, a magna cum laude graduate of Stanford Law School, says he couldn’t even get an interview for several advertised teaching position at the law school.

Spaeth has served as general counsel at three publicly held companies with billions in assets, argued a groundbreaking tax case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and was a partner at three law firms. He also taught for four years at the University of Missouri School of Law, three years as an adjunct and one year as a visiting professor.

He applied to Michigan law school, which ended up hiring three attorneys for the 2011-2012 school year who graduated in 2006, 2005 and 2001, respectively. One of the new hires had no experience as a legal practitioner. The applicant who was hired by Michigan to teach in Spaeth’s area of specialty, corporate taxation, had three years of practical experience as an associate in a law firm.  Spaeth, who served two four-year terms as North Dakota’s Attorney General, is a former general counsel of H & R Block.

Spaeth earlier filed complaints with the EEOC against more than 100 law schools that also did not offer him an interview.  The EEOC dismissed most, if not all, if Spaeth’s complaints.

One of Spaeth’s age discrimination lawsuits in March passed a critical stage in the legal process. A federal judge denied a motion by Georgetown University’s law school to dismiss Spaeth’s claims that the law school violated federal and District of Columbia laws when it failed to offer tenure-track teaching job. “It… remains plausible that Georgetown could be liable for age discrimination,”   wrote U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle in her opinion in Spaeth v. Georgetown University, United States District Court, District of Columbia, No. 11-1376..

The EEOC’s Marymount suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action No. 12-cv-2388 (JPO) after the EEOC unsuccessfully sought to settle the matter.

“Our suit charges that age was the deciding factor in this case,” said EEOC trial attorney Justin Mulaire.  “Under the law, age has no place in hiring decisions — and tenure-track positions in academia are no exception.”

The Age discrimination against employees and job applicants who are age 40 or older is a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Elizabeth Grossman, the regional attorney of the EEOC’s New York District Office, said, “Older workers have the right to be evaluated based on their abilities and not based on their age.  The EEOC is committed to combating bias against older workers in all phases of employment and in all types of employment settings.”

Filed Under: DISPATCHES, EEOC Tagged With: , , , Georgetown Law School, Marymount College, Michigan State University College of Law, Nicholas Spaeth, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle