- A new law, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, will take effect in the nation’s workplaces on Nov. 21, 2009 for employers with 15 or more employees.
- This law prohibits employers from requesting genetic testing or considering someone’s genetic background in hiring, firing or promotions and health insurers from requiring such testing or using genetic information to deny coverage or set deductibles.
- Genetic tests help determine whether someone is at risk of developing an inherited disease or medical condition.
- Congress passed the new law last year because many Americans feared that their employers would discriminate against them because of their genetic history.
- The act includes a “water cooler” exception, as in a case where a manager overhears one employee telling another that his father had a stroke.
This course prepared me to better understand this article through our course on genetics. We studied that people inherit their genes and DNA from their parents. Some people also inherit certain tendencies of getting diseases easier than someone else might get the disease. Also, people's genetics can help to determine a person's occupation, like if certain working conditions would cause severe health problems for a certain person.
People, Agencies, etc.
- John C. Stivarius Jr.
- J. D. Piro, a principal in the Health Care Law Group at Hewitt Associates
- Peggy R. Mastroianni, associate legal counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Christopher Kuczynski, assistant legal counsel with the commission
- Sharon F. Terry, chairwoman of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness
- Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
- David Escher
- Michael P. Aitken, director of governmental affairs for the Society of Human Resource Management
- Mr. Stivarius, the Atlanta lawyer
- Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans
Type of Article:
This article is none of those listed on the sheet. Instead, it is a report on a new law passed. This law prohibits employers from testing their employees' genetic histories. This article is from November of 2009, so it is currently in effect.
MLA: Greenhouse, Steven. "The New York Times." New York Times 16 Nov. 2009: B5. The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. 15 Nov. 2009. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/business/16genes.html.
PART TWO: BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Article #1: Conn. woman alleges genetic discrimination at work
MLA: Reitz, Stephanie. "The Associated Press: Conn. Woman Alleges Genetic Discrimination at Work." Google. 28 Apr. 2010. Web. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5idLXFbznBv57CnEMaLryCjkfjAgQD9FCA2T80.
Summary:
This article is about a Connecticut woman who had a voluntary double mastectomy after genetic testing. She is alleging her employer of eliminating her job after learning she carried a gene implicated in breast cancer. Her complaints are among the first known to be filed nationwide based on the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Pamela Fink told her bosses at MXenergy about her genetic tests and the surgery, and then they fired her. She said her job was eliminated — the only one in her department — and she was escorted out in March, about six weeks after she returned from her second surgery. Catherine Barbieri, a Philadelphia attorney specializing in anti-discrimination employment law, said the Connecticut case is the first she's heard about nationwide that cites the genetic tests law. This is totally wrong of companies to do. Judging people by their genetic background is just as bad as being racist or sexist. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act has been applied for one of the first times.
Article #2: Discrimination Claims Rising in Wake of Genetic Bias Law
MLA: Greenwald, Judy. "Discrimination Claims Rising in Wake of Genetic Bias Law " Business Insurance News, Analysis & Articles. May 2010. Web. http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100516/ISSUE01/305169979.
Summary:
This article is about more lawsuits involving the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Even after knowing about the law, many companies continued to perform genetic tests on their employees. It says that the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee is expected to issue final rules in connection with GINA soon. So far, the EEOC has received about 80 GINA-related claims. They expect to receive a huge wave of complaints relating to infractions of the GINA by companies who continue to perform genetic tests on their employees. Employees aren't the only victims in this situation -- employers have to be careful about being set up by their employees volunteering genetic information and then alleging that was the cause of a subsequent adverse job action. The EEOC is being very proactive in their efforts in pursuing claims that they can control. Since the law passed during a period of economic turmoil, employers haven't put much emphasis on it. Employers need to be more careful in their pursuits to genetically test their employees, while employees need to be more careful in letting information slip about their genetic history.
PART THREE: ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL BIAS
1. Bias through selection and omission
This article selected to write from the standpoint of the victims -- the people. It portrays the employers as the ones causing all the lawsuits. However, that is not always the case. The employees sometimes let on a little too much about their genetic history, and they give their employers reason to test them and fire them. This article shows the companies as greedy when the "boss [says] the company could not afford to keep [an employee] if the results were positive." That's just not fair.
2. Bias through placement
This article focused on the positive effects caused by this law. It talked about how it prevents unfair treatment of employees with certain genetic backgrounds. There really aren't any negative effects of this law, and the article proved that by talking about how more people would be able to keep their jobs. Even though the law has many positive effects, we are yet to find out if there are any negative things about it.
3. Bias by headline
The headline of this article accurately summarizes this article. It approves of the law, and shows that genetic testing is being misused by people. It is a very biased headline, implying that the law will be great for all people because they will not have to be discriminated against because of their genetic background.
4. Bias by photos, captions, and camera angles
There is one picture included in this article. It shows a man who got let go from his job because his employer found out that he had developed carpal tunnel syndrome. The picture portrays the man with a smile on his face, but it doesn't look real. There seems to be some worry in his eyes. His pose looks fixed and un-humanlike as well.
5. Bias through use of names and titles
This article does not use specific names to degrade certain people. The writer of this story used average people and large companies to get his point across. It was almost as if the writer was channeling his inner child when he makes it seem like the company/employer as the bully and the employee as the defenseless child.
6. Bias through statistics and crowd counts
This article gives this statistic: "In a nationwide survey, 63 percent of respondents said they would not have genetic testing if the employers could see the results." This statistic is biased in the number it gives. The writer is the only person who knows what the percent of the statistic is, so it could be higher or lower. This statistic doesn't seem too biased though because the number is reasonable -- it is a majority, but not overpowered by the minority. If people see that stat, they will think they need to support the cause so the number will go up for of fear of defeat.
7.Bias by source control
This story comes from the New York Times, which is a highly regarded newspaper source. I haven't heard the name of this author many times before, so he may have used too much opinion in this article. This author was most likely briefed on the story then told to write a story on it. During his briefing, he was probably introduced to bias that supports the law. Therefore, his sources are biased towards supporting the new law, and his story was based upon that bias.
8.Bias by word choice and tone
This author uses promotive and positive words when talking about the law. He also uses this type of words when talking about supporting the employees. He uses degrading and negative words when talking about the companies and employers conducting the genetic tests. The author wants the reader to take caution with their employers and cautions them to avoid the kinds of situations when they have to get tested for their genetic background.
