{"id":3507,"date":"2015-06-29T12:20:55","date_gmt":"2015-06-29T12:20:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ncjolt.org\/?p=3507"},"modified":"2020-06-04T20:53:36","modified_gmt":"2020-06-04T20:53:36","slug":"plaintiffs-win-big-in-the-case-of-the-devious-defecator","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/blogs\/plaintiffs-win-big-in-the-case-of-the-devious-defecator\/","title":{"rendered":"Plaintiffs Win Big in the \u201cCase of the Devious Defecator\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

On June 22, Jurors awarded<\/a> $2.25 million in damages for plaintiffs Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds, whose DNA was unlawfully obtained by their employer, Defendant Atlas Logistics Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC. An Atlanta Judge had already ruled<\/a> in the case of first impression that Atlas was violating the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (\u201cGINA\u201d), 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000ff, et seq<\/a>., which makes it generally unlawful for employers to discriminate against their employees based on an employee\u2019s genetic information.
\nAtlas Logistics Retail Services warehouses distribute grocery store products. In this bizarre set of facts, a mysterious employee was defecating in one of Atlas\u2019 warehouses. To try to find the culprit, Atlas tested several employees\u2019 DNA by taking cheek swabs, and sending the information to a lab where the employees\u2019 DNA was compared to the DNA in the fecal matter. Lowe\u2019s and Reynolds\u2019s DNA were not a match, and while Atlas was still trying to find the \u201cdevious defecator<\/a>,\u201d the two filed suit under GINA, claiming that Atlas had unlawfully requested their DNA.
\nAtlas attempted to argue<\/a> that the cheek tests are not genetic tests because the comparison was not to obtain information about the employees\u2019 genetic predispositions to disease, but rather a forensic purpose to try find the culprit. However, Judge Totenberg made clear<\/a> in her opinion that \u201cthe unambiguous language of GINA covers Atlas\u2019s requests for Lowe\u2019s and Reynolds\u2019s genetic information and thus compels judgment in favor of Lowe and Reynolds.\u201d
\nThis case sets an important precedent: An employer cannot use an employee\u2019s genetic information for \u201cforensic purposes\u201d or to determine what types of genetic defects they might have. Establishing damages for this case was equally significant because it is difficult to determine what the harm is to the employees, if the genetic information is not used to discriminate against them. Here, the jurors \u201cawarded<\/a> $475,000 in compensatory damages for mental pain and $1.75 million in punitive damages.\u201d
\nAs the first case under GINA has gone to trial, Judge Totenberg crafted a careful opinion<\/a>, explaining in detail the legislative history, science, and text to help other courts decide similar issues in the future. As UNC Law Professor John Conley, editor of the Genomics Law Report<\/a>, pointed out, \u201cThis is an application of the law that no one thought of in a million years, but the ruling is not controversial. You can’t use genetic testing for dismissal purposes.\u201d
\nGINA has been invoked<\/a> more and more frequently in recent years: it was mentioned over\u00a0 200 times in 2010 in US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (\u201cEEOC\u201d) cases, and over 300 times in 2014. Although employers do not generally seem to be abusing people\u2019s genetic information, people still fear an invasion of their privacy by employers or insurance companies.<\/p>\n

GINA<\/a> does seem to truly be a \u201ccivil rights law for the 21st<\/sup> Century.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On June 22, Jurors awarded $2.25 million in damages for plaintiffs Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds, whose DNA was unlawfully obtained by their employer, Defendant Atlas Logistics Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC. An Atlanta Judge had already ruled in the case of first impression that Atlas was violating the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (\u201cGINA\u201d), 42 U.S.C. …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3508,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[51],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3507"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3507"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3507\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7327,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3507\/revisions\/7327"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3508"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/ncjolt\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}