In August 2009, the Board of Trustees of the University of Akron added to the university's employment policy the following proviso: "any applicant may be asked to submit fingerprints or DNA sample for purpose of a federal criminal background check." Although the federal government does not do background checks with DNA, the policy is significant because it highlights a largely unexplored feature of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 ("GINA"). Hailed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy as "the first civil rights bill of the new century of life sciences," GINA generally prohibits employers from asking for "genetic information." The faculty senate and outside commentators have declared that the Akron policy is "of doubtful legality" because it "appears to violate" GINA. However, appearances can be deceptive. GINA's ban on the acquisition of "genetic information" also can be read so that it does not reach nonmedical DNA tests. Because employers have nondiscriminatory reasons to use forensic DNA identification technology, this narrower interpretation is more faithful to the express purpose of the law.
MOST POPULAR
First Impressions
BY DATE
Monthly Archive
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (1)
- November 2011 (1)
- September 2011 (1)
- August 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (2)
- April 2011 (1)
- March 2011 (2)
TOPICS
Tagged Posts
- Agriculture (8)
- Animals (8)
- Ariel Porat (1)
- Arizona (1)
- Asylum (1)
- Balkin (1)
- Batson v. Kentucky (1)
- Bringewatt (1)
- Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (1)
- Citizens United (1)
- Commerce Clause (2)
- Commercial Speech (1)
- Confrontation Clause (7)
- Congress (1)
- Constitutional Interpretation (2)
- Corporate Governance (3)
- criminal law (1)
- Death Penalty (7)
- DNA (2)
- Domestic Abuse (1)
- Due Care (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Electoral College (7)
- Environment (8)
- Environmental Policy (7)
- Equal Protection (1)
- Equality (8)
- estate tax (1)
- fifth amendment (1)
- Financial Firms (2)
- First Amendment (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Gender (1)
- Gerrymandering (7)
- Gilo & Guttel (4)
- GINA (1)
- Global Enforcement (1)
- Global Financial Crisis (1)
- Graham v. Florida (2)
- Healthcare (1)
- Human Rights (1)
- Immigration (2)
- Individual Mandate (2)
- Individual Mandate. Universal Health Care (1)
- Insufficient Activity Levels (4)
- Intellectual Property (1)
- Jail (7)
- Joint and Several Liability (1)
- Judicial Review (2)
- Jury Selection (1)
- Juveniles (2)
- Lacey Act (1)
- Local Control (1)
- LWOP (2)
- Manning (1)
- McCain (6)
- Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (5)
- Miranda (1)
- Natural Born Citizenship (6)
- Originalism (1)
- Patent Law (6)
- Pay to Stay (7)
- peremptory challenges (1)
- perpetual trusts (1)
- PPACA (1)
- Preemption (1)
- Probability (1)
- Product Liability (1)
- Proportionality (2)
- Race (1)
- reasonable person test (1)
- Regulatory State (1)
- Religion (1)
- S.B. 1070 (1)
- Same Sex Marriage (1)
- Securities Fraud (1)
- Supreme Court (9)
- tax (1)
- Tebbe & Tsai (1)
- Television (8)
- Terrorism (1)
- Timber (1)
- Tort (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trademark Dilution (4)
- trusts (1)
- Vaccine (1)
- Vaccines (7)
- Women (1)
February 2012 Vol. 110 No. 4
CURRENT FEATURES
& Other Current Events