This paper examines several key areas of U.S. employment discrimination law through four short-answer questions. It begins with an overview of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) and its effects on hiring practices, health insurance underwriting, and employer liability. The paper then explores how managers navigate EEOC compliance in practice, noting common difficulties in adapting to newer regulations. It also discusses the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the sweeping changes it brought to workplace culture and public accessibility. Finally, the paper outlines the EEOC's enforcement role, examines protections afforded to pregnant workers under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and highlights the ongoing gap in legal protections for LGBT employees.
The paper demonstrates applied statutory analysis: it identifies the purpose and scope of each law, then evaluates its real-world effects on employers, employees, and insurers. Rather than simply defining each statute, the author consistently asks "what does this mean in practice?" — a technique central to policy and legal studies writing.
The paper is organized as four discrete question-and-answer sections. Section one covers GINA's implications for employers and health insurers. Section two reflects on managerial compliance challenges with EEOC law. Section three surveys the ADA's societal impact. Section four outlines EEOC enforcement scope, protections for pregnant workers, and the absence of federal protections for LGBT individuals. Each section stands alone but collectively the paper surveys the broader U.S. anti-discrimination employment landscape.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) allows individuals to keep their genetic information confidential, providing them protection against bias in the workplace, in obtaining health insurance, and in other areas. GINA affects hiring practices in the workplace; it is illegal for a company to request family medical history or genetic information. If an employee feels that genetic and family medical history was obtained by an employer, and that employee is subsequently fired — even for a performance-related or other reason — the employee legally has the right to claim an adverse action on the part of the employer due to the genetic information the employer received. The burden of proof would reside with the employer to demonstrate that the adverse employment action was not related to the medical information uncovered. Even casual conversations can put an employer at risk of violating GINA. For example, asking a simple "how was your weekend?" question or expressing sympathies for an employee's sick loved one could be considered "probing," as the employer might uncover information about the employee's personal and/or family medical and genetic history.
With GINA, health insurance carriers can no longer deny coverage to a person based on his or her genetic and medical history. Prior to GINA, health insurers could deny an individual coverage simply because they believed a person might develop a disease in the future. Because of this, many individuals intentionally withheld their health history for fear of an adverse action. Health insurance underwriters cannot collect genetic information for the purpose of determining eligibility, nor can employer wellness programs use genetic information and family history in health assessments and other tools. Both employers and health insurance companies must reassess their current tools to ensure that the assessments they use to evaluate overall health and well-being do not violate GINA.
Private health care insurers will incur increased costs associated with ensuring adherence to this legislation. From underwriting to training to management, insurance companies will need to invest money and time to ensure they do not commit an infraction in violation of GINA. Despite the increased administrative costs of aligning company policies and practices with GINA's guidelines, consumers will fare much better in the long run. Those who were once afraid to speak with their healthcare provider about family and genetic medical history will now share this information, knowing they will not be denied medical treatment. Medical assistance and preventative measures can be taken, and early treatment can be provided if needed. This not only benefits the insured, but also the insurer. When consumers thrive, so does the economy.
Managers are responsible for negotiating the balance between employee satisfaction and productivity and the needs and goals set forth by company leadership. While part of diversity management involves creating an open and tolerant work environment, ensuring that relevant state, local, and federal laws are followed is also critical. Some managers, in an attempt to appease employees and boost productivity, allow employees to bend the rules. Bending the rules at times may be more than a small transgression; it may constitute a violation of EEOC laws.
Management can be slow to adjust to new regulations. While most managers understand foundational concepts such as Affirmative Action, many have difficulty understanding and adapting to newer regulations. The time it takes for a new policy or law to become the norm rather than the exception can be much slower than desired. The size of the company and how proactive its leadership is can often predict how adept and flexible management will be in implementing and enforcing new policies and laws. Managers may understand and apply the basic tenets of applicable laws and legislation, yet, sandwiched between front-line staff and senior leadership, they may be slow to adapt because of conflicting directives or competing demands that impede their ability to accomplish what is needed. For these reasons, managers sometimes straddle the line between acceptable conduct and a possible violation of EEOC laws. This illustrates why it is important to provide front-line management with the tools, support, and information needed to ensure implementation and enforcement of all applicable laws. Failing to do so can cost the company time and money and render it vulnerable to damaging lawsuits and a tarnished public image.
You’re 55% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.