Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58546, 2015 WL 2058906, 102 F.Supp.3d 1360 (2015)
Rule of Law:
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) broadly defines "genetic information" to include the results of any "genetic test" that analyzes human DNA to detect genotypes or mutations, regardless of whether the test reveals an individual's propensity for disease or disorder.
Facts:
- Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC operated warehouses for storing grocery products.
- Beginning in 2012, an unknown employee repeatedly defecated in Atlas's Bouldercrest Warehouse, necessitating the destruction of grocery products on at least one occasion.
- Atlas's Loss Prevention Manager, Don Hill, investigated the issue by comparing employee work schedules to the incidents to create a list of potential suspects, including Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds.
- Hill hired Speckin Forensic Laboratories to compare buccal swab samples from suspects to the DNA collected from the fecal matter found in the warehouse.
- Lowe and Reynolds provided buccal swab samples to Dr. Julie Howenstine, who sent them to GenQuest DNA Analysis Laboratory via an intermediary.
- GenQuest performed Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis using the PowerPlex 21 System on Lowe’s and Reynolds’s DNA samples.
- Dr. Howenstine compared the DNA samples of Lowe and Reynolds to the fecal matter DNA and determined that neither was the culprit.
- Atlas requested and obtained the results of this DNA analysis from Speckin Labs.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 27, 2013, Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Atlas violated GINA.
- On April 24, 2013, the EEOC dismissed Lowe’s and Reynolds’s charges, stating it was "unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes" but did not certify compliance.
- On July 22, 2013, Lowe and Reynolds timely filed a lawsuit against Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
- The Plaintiffs, Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds, filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Atlas's liability.
- The Defendant, Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC, filed a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment as to all claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's request for an employee's DNA analysis, performed using Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis for identification purposes, constitute a request for "genetic information" prohibited by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Amy Totenberg
Yes, an employer's request for an employee's DNA analysis, even for identification purposes unrelated to disease propensity, constitutes a request for "genetic information" prohibited by GINA. The court determined that the plain, unambiguous language of GINA defines "genetic test" as "an analysis of human DNA...that detects genotypes, mutations, or chromosomal changes," which unequivocally covers the STR analysis performed on Lowe's and Reynolds's DNA. This information, being about an individual's genetic tests, therefore falls under GINA's definition of "genetic information." The court rejected Atlas's argument that "genetic tests" should be limited to those revealing a propensity for disease, noting that such an interpretation would render superfluous a specific statutory exception for DNA analysis used in human remains identification for quality control, an analysis unrelated to disease. Furthermore, the court found Atlas's reliance on legislative history unpersuasive, as congressional concerns about GINA's broad scope were ultimately not incorporated into the final bill. Finally, the court dismissed Atlas's argument regarding EEOC regulations, pointing out that the provided examples were non-exhaustive and included tests (like ancestry or paternity DNA testing) that do not determine disease propensity, thus contradicting Atlas's narrow interpretation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), clarifying that its protections are not limited to genetic information related to disease or medical conditions. By affirming a plain language interpretation of GINA's definitions of "genetic test" and "genetic information," the court established that even DNA analyses performed solely for identification purposes fall under the Act's prohibitions against employer requests. This case reinforces the importance of statutory text over perceived legislative intent or agency examples, particularly when the text is unambiguous. Its impact will likely be to provide broader privacy protections for employees regarding their genetic material, compelling employers to exercise extreme caution before requesting any form of DNA analysis from their workforce, regardless of the intended use.
