(a) Medical information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition. (1) A covered entity shall not be considered to be in violation of this part based on the use, acquisition, or disclosure of medical information that is not genetic information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition of an employee or member, even if the disease, disorder, or pathological condition has or may have a genetic basis or component.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the acquisition, use, and disclosure of medical information that is not genetic information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition is subject to applicable limitations under sections 103(d)(1)-(4) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(1)-(4)), and regulations at 29 CFR 1630.13, 1630.14, and 1630.16.
(b) Genetic information related to a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition. Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, genetic information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition is subject to the requirements and prohibitions in sections 202 through 206 of GINA and §§ 1635.4 through 1635.9 of this part.
Notes of Decisions
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Grisham Farm Prods., Inc., 191 F. Supp. 3d 994 (W.D. Mo. 2016).
“§ 2000ff-9; 29 C.F.R. § 1635.12 . A disease, disorder, or pathological condition is considered “manifested” if the individual “has been or could reasonably be diagnosed with the disease, disorder, or pathological condition by a *998 healthcare professional[.”
Duignan v. City of Chicago, 275 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017).
“As for plaintiffs discrimination claim under GINA, 29 C.F.R. § 1635.12 provides that “[m]edical information that about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition” is not considered “genetic, information” under GINA.”
Ries v. City Of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2023).
“§ 2000ff–9; 29 C.F.R. § 1635.12 . And Plaintiff offers nothing that suggests vaccination status reveals information about an individual’s family medical history.”
Munnerlyn v. Installed Bldg. Prods., LLC (W.D. Tex. 2020).
“3 See also 29 C.F.R. § 1635.12 (a)(1) (“A covered entity shall not be considered to be in violation of this part based on the use, acquisition, or disclosure of medical information that is not genetic information about a manifested disease, disorder, or pathological condition of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.