42 U.S.C. § 2000ff

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

In this chapter:(1) Commission

The term “Commission” means the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as created by section 2000e–4 of this title.

(2) Employee; employer; employment agency; labor organization; member(A) In generalThe term “employee” means—(i) an employee (including an applicant), as defined in section 2000e(f) of this title;(ii) a State employee (including an applicant) described in section 2000e–16c(a) of this title;(iii) a covered employee (including an applicant), as defined in section 1301 of title 2;(iv) a covered employee (including an applicant), as defined in section 411(c) of title 3; or(v) an employee or applicant to which section 2000e–16(a) of this title applies.(B) EmployerThe term “employer” means—(i) an employer (as defined in section 2000e(b) of this title);(ii) an entity employing a State employee described in section 2000e–16c(a) of this title;(iii) an employing office, as defined in section 1301 of title 2;(iv) an employing office, as defined in section 411(c) of title 3; or(v) an entity to which section 2000e–16(a) of this title applies.(C) Employment agency; labor organization

The terms “employment agency” and “labor organization” have the meanings given the terms in section 2000e of this title.

(D) Member

The term “member”, with respect to a labor organization, includes an applicant for membership in a labor organization.

(3) Family memberThe term “family member” means, with respect to an individual—(A) a dependent (as such term is used for purposes of section 1181(f)(2) of title 29) of such individual, and(B) any other individual who is a first-degree, second-degree, third-degree, or fourth-degree relative of such individual or of an individual described in subparagraph (A).(4) Genetic information(A) In generalThe term “genetic information” means, with respect to any individual, information about—(i) such individual’s genetic tests,(ii) the genetic tests of family members of such individual, and(iii) the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members of such individual.(B) Inclusion of genetic services and participation in genetic research

Such term includes, with respect to any individual, any request for, or receipt of, genetic services, or participation in clinical research which includes genetic services, by such individual or any family member of such individual.

The term “genetic information” shall not include information about the sex or age of any individual.

(5) Genetic monitoring

The term “genetic monitoring” means the periodic examination of employees to evaluate acquired modifications to their genetic material, such as chromosomal damage or evidence of increased occurrence of mutations, that may have developed in the course of employment due to exposure to toxic substances in the workplace, in order to identify, evaluate, and respond to the effects of or control adverse environmental exposures in the workplace.

(6) Genetic servicesThe term “genetic services” means—(A) a genetic test;(B) genetic counseling (including obtaining, interpreting, or assessing genetic information); or(C) genetic education.(7) Genetic test(A) In general

The term “genetic test” means an analysis of human DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, or metabolites, that detects genotypes, mutations, or chromosomal changes.

(B) Exceptions

The term “genetic test” does not mean an analysis of proteins or metabolites that does not detect genotypes, mutations, or chromosomal changes.

(Pub. L. 110–233, title II, § 201, May 21, 2008, 122 Stat. 905.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 110–233, title II, § 213, May 21, 2008, 122 Stat. 920, provided that: “This title [enacting this chapter] takes effect on the date that is 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act [May 21, 2008].”

Short Title

Pub. L. 110–233, § 1(a), May 21, 2008, 122 Stat. 881, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter, sections 300gg–53 and 1320d–9 of this title, and section 9834 of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code, amending sections 300gg–1, 300gg–21, 300gg–22, 300gg–61, 300gg–91, and 1395ss of this title, sections 9802 and 9832 of Title 26, and sections 216, 1132, 1182, and 1191b of Title 29, Labor, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section, sections 300gg–1, 1320d–9, and 1395ss of this title, section 9802 of Title 26, and sections 216 and 1132 of Title 29] may be cited as the ‘Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008’.”

Severability

Pub. L. 110–233, title III, § 301, May 21, 2008, 122 Stat. 920, provided that: “If any provision of this Act [see Short Title note above], an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of such provisions to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.”

Findings

Pub. L. 110–233, § 2, May 21, 2008, 122 Stat. 881, as amended by Pub. L. 111–256, § 2(j), Oct. 5, 2010, 124 Stat. 2644, provided that: “Congress makes the following findings:“(1) Deciphering the sequence of the human genome and other advances in genetics open major new opportunities for medical progress. New knowledge about the genetic basis of illness will allow for earlier detection of illnesses, often before symptoms have begun. Genetic testing can allow individuals to take steps to reduce the likelihood that they will contract a particular disorder. New knowledge about genetics may allow for the development of better therapies that are more effective against disease or have fewer side effects than current treatments. These advances give rise to the potential misuse of genetic information to discriminate in health insurance and employment.“(2) The early science of genetics became the basis of State laws that provided for the sterilization of persons having presumed genetic ‘defects’ such as intellectual disabilities, mental disease, epilepsy, blindness, and hearing loss, among other conditions. The first sterilization law was enacted in the State of Indiana in 1907. By 1981, a majority of States adopted sterilization laws to ‘correct’ apparent genetic traits or tendencies. Many of these State laws have since been repealed, and many have been modified to include essential constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection. However, the current explosion in the science of genetics, and the history of sterilization laws by the States based on early genetic science, compels Congressional action in this area.“(3) Although genes are facially neutral markers, many genetic conditions and disorders are associated with particular racial and ethnic groups and gender. Because some genetic traits are most prevalent in particular groups, members of a particular group may be stigmatized or discriminated against as a result of that genetic information. This form of discrimination was evident in the 1970s, which saw the advent of programs to screen and identify carriers of sickle cell anemia, a disease which afflicts African-Americans. Once again, State legislatures began to enact discriminatory laws in the area, and in the early 1970s began mandating genetic screening of all African Americans for sickle cell anemia, leading to discrimination and unnecessary fear. To alleviate some of this stigma, Congress in 1972 passed the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act [Pub. L. 92–294, see Tables for classification], which withholds Federal funding from States unless sickle cell testing is voluntary.“(4) Congress has been informed of examples of genetic discrimination in the workplace. These include the use of pre-employment genetic screening at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which led to a court decision in favor of the employees in that case [sic] Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998)). Congress clearly has a compelling public interest in relieving the fear of discrimination and in prohibiting its actual practice in employment and health insurance.“(5) Federal law addressing genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment is incomplete in both the scope and depth of its protections. Moreover, while many States have enacted some type of genetic non-discrimination law, these laws vary widely with respect to their approach, application, and level of protection. Congress has collected substantial evidence that the American public and the medical community find the existing patchwork of State and Federal laws to be confusing and inadequate to protect them from discrimination. Therefore Federal legislation establishing a national and uniform basic standard is necessary to fully protect the public from discrimination and allay their concerns about the potential for discrimination, thereby allowing individuals to take advantage of genetic testing, technologies, research, and new therapies.”

[For meaning of references to an intellectual disability and to individuals with intellectual disabilities in provisions amended by section 2 of Pub. L. 111–256, see section 2(k) of Pub. L. 111–256, set out as a note under section 1400 of Title 20, Education.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 110 cases (70 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Alfred Ortiz, III v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept, 806 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alfred Ortiz, III v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept, 806 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff — 1(a)(1), (2). The Act also makes it unlawful “for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee,” with some exceptions.”

Punt v. Kelly Servs., 862 F.3d 1040 (10th Cir. 2017). “, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq., by a temporary employee whose assignment by a staffing agency to work as the receptionist for another business was terminated after she missed a significant amount of work while being tested for…”

Russo v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist., 129 F.4th 182 (2d Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “Russo also alleged that the District impermissibly solicited and used her genetic information by inquiring about her and her child’s vaccination histories during the religious exemption interviews, in violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff…”

IMS Health Inc. v. Sorrell, 630 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “520 (protecting information collected pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act); 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq. (protecting privacy of genetic information); 42 C.”

Edna Doak v. Jeh Johnson, 798 F.3d 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2015). “§ 206 (d) (sex-based wage discrimination), and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.”

Raskin v. Dallas Indep Sch Dist, 69 F.4th 280 (5th Cir. 2023). “21-11180 her children’s rights under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff, et seq. The district court dismissed the GINA claims because Raskin lacked Article III standing to bring those claims on her own behalf and because Raskin—who is not a…”

Dumas v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 837 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 3× “Count 10 Plaintiffs final count asserts a violation of Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff, et seq. Although GINA provides for a private civil cause of action, Plaintiff has failed to plead a sufficient basis for such claim.”

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Grisham Farm Prods., Inc., 191 F. Supp. 3d 994 (W.D. Mo. 2016). · cites it 2× “, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of dis *995 ability; under Title II of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff et seq., to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of genetic information; and pursuant to…”

Higgins v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 303 F. Supp. 3d 945 (D. Neb. 2018). “" 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4). As with Count II, Higgins has not presented evidence to establish an injury-in-fact or to show that Union Pacific's request for medical information was conducted with the requisite state of mind to merit punitive damages.”

Robbins v. Dist. of Columbia, 650 F. App'x 37 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “C § 633a; 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff. Robbins’ naked reference to the “EEOC” thus does not provide any basis for inferring opposition to racial discrimination.”

Fuentes v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep't, 240 F. Supp. 3d 634 (W.D. Tex. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4), (7); 29 C.F.R. § 1635.”

Alexander v. E. Tank Servs., Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 544 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “He alleged that Eastern unlawfully terminated his employment in violation of the ADA, the ACRA, and 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff (GINA). 1 Appellant alleged that he began seeing a therapist at Vista Health in Barling, Arkansas, on August 9, 2012, for biweekly outpatient therapy sessions…”

Show all 110 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(2)(A) — 2 cases

Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Grp. Retail Servs. (Atlanta), LLC, 102 F. Supp. 3d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

Sol v. City of Dallas Texas (N.D. Tex. 2024).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case

Witherspoon v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision (N.D.N.Y. 2022).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(2)(B) — 1 case

Dittmann v. ACS Human Servs. LLC, 210 F. Supp. 3d 1047 (N.D. Ind. 2016).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(2)(B)(i) — 3 cases

Milner-Koonce v. Albany City Sch. Dist. (N.D.N.Y. 2022).

Thomas v. Gryck (W.D. Pa. 2020).

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp, LLC (N.D. Ala. 2022).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4) — 13 cases

Poore v. Peterbilt of Bristol, L.L.C., 852 F. Supp. 2d 727 (W.D. Va. 2012).

Fuentes v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep't, 240 F. Supp. 3d 634 (W.D. Tex. 2017). “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4), (7); 29 C.F.R. § 1635.”

Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Grp. Retail Servs. (Atlanta), LLC, 102 F. Supp. 3d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

Kolela Mpoyo v. Fis Mgmt. Servs., LLC (9th Cir. 2021).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4)(A) — 25 cases

Russo v. Patchogue-Medford Sch. Dist., 129 F.4th 182 (2d Cir. 2025). “Russo also alleged that the District impermissibly solicited and used her genetic information by inquiring about her and her child’s vaccination histories during the religious exemption interviews, in violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff…”

Smith v. Donahoe, 917 F. Supp. 2d 562 (E.D. Va. 2013).

Duignan v. City of Chicago, 275 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017).

Dumas v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 837 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Mich. 2011). “Count 10 Plaintiffs final count asserts a violation of Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff, et seq. Although GINA provides for a private civil cause of action, Plaintiff has failed to plead a sufficient basis for such claim.”

Anderson v. United Airlines, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4)(A)(iii) — 4 cases

McKnight v. United Airlines, Inc (N.D. Ill. 2024).

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Dolgencorp, LLC (N.D. Ala. 2022).

Taylor v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (N.D. Ill. 2024).

Ginski v. Ethos Seafood Grp., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2024).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(6)(d) — 1 case

Fisher v. Yellen (D.D.C. 2025).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(7) — 2 cases

Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Grp. Retail Servs. (Atlanta), LLC, 102 F. Supp. 3d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2015).

Fisher v. Yellen (D.D.C. 2025).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(7)(A) — 10 cases

Anderson v. United Airlines, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023).

James Williams v. Graphic Packaging Int'l, Inc. (6th Cir. 2019).

Ries v. City Of Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2023).

Branson v. Caterpillar Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2024).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(7)(B) — 2 cases

Alfred Ortiz, III v. City of San Antonio Fire Dept, 806 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2015). “” 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff — 1(a)(1), (2). The Act also makes it unlawful “for an employer to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee,” with some exceptions.”

Raskin v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. (N.D. Tex. 2024).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(a)(1) — 1 case

Homer v. The Pennsylvania State Univ. (W.D. Pa. 2023).

— 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(b) — 1 case

Fuentes v. City of San Antonio Fire Dep't, 240 F. Supp. 3d 634 (W.D. Tex. 2017). “See 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff(4), (7); 29 C.F.R. § 1635.”

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.