The goal of this essay is to determine whether the information presented within it could be considered a violation or a non-violation of the GINA of 2008. A case study has been determined to be a method to learn about a complex instance. This information is based on understanding the detailed instance and analyzing the context as a whole. I will be briefly discussing this case study. The GINA legislation had unanimous support when it was signed into law by President Bush. This case study is broken down into many different stories that focus on GINA. The Act was voted into Congress in 2008 (Hudson, Holohan, & Collins, 2014). Case studies also describes an analyses of persons, events, decisions, periods, projects, policies, institutions, or other systems that are studied. GINA is being described as promoting genetic research and preventive screening, safeguard medical privacy, and prevent unfair treatment of individuals based on traits that are linked to diseases (Hudson, Holohan, Collins, 2014).
There was talk about the threat that arises from the Supreme Court’s federalism revolution of 1995-2001. Chief Justice Rehnquist took greater strides in placing a limit on the power of Congress. These rules affected the Tenth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments along with the Commerce Clause that would balance the power of the state and federal (Tobin, 2008). It is stated in the fact sheet that “GINA expands the genetic information protections included in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). HIPAA prevents a plan or issuer from imposing a preexisting condition exclusion provision based solely on genetic information, and prohibits discrimination in individual eligibility, benefits, or premiums based on any health factor (including genetic information)” (United States Department of Labor, 2009). Surveys was taken from 50 states that relied on the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These surveys showed disparities in private sector leave and gender differences. Arguments are made over the distinction based on the level of scrutiny (Tobin, 2008).
GINA was first introduced in 1995 in response to concerns about the misuse of information regarding genetic predispositions to various diseases. The bill sought to help those that was applying for insurance to keep them from being denied. According to GINA the analysis went wrong in some aspect of employment. The Supreme Court’s Section 5 jurisprudence insofar as they provide remedies for state employees (Tobin, 2008). It is also unlawful for a covered entity to disclose genetic information about applicants, employees or members. Covered entities must keep genetic information confidential and in a separate medical file (Tobin, 2008). There are limited exceptions to this non-disclosure rule, such as exceptions that provide for the disclosure of relevant genetic information to government officials investigating compliance with Title II of GINA and for disclosures made pursuant to a court order (Tobin, 2008).
When it comes down to any type of employment the law forbids discrimination on the basis of genetic information which include hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, fringe benefits, or any other type of employment. An employer should never use genetic information to make an employment decision because genetic information is not relevant to an individual’s ability to work at any time (Tobin, 2008). A goal of the policy is to protect equality and privacy of an employer that lose their jobs as a result to genetic testing. According to Kimel and Garrett evidence that Congress collected is of no concern because it’s only in the private sector and not by state. Some states argued that being flexible to GINA is not consistent with the Court’s (Tobin, 2008).
Instances in these cases shows the analysis of the areas that are considered too went wrong with GINA. For instance, courts need to apply heightened constitutional scrutiny to genetic discrimination. This will keep states from arguing against them and win stating its insufficient data. Another examples is there is a strong case for abrogating sovereign immunity in those cases where employers rely on the information that is took from genetic testing that has been linked to racial or ethnic backgrounds. The last reason is the provisions that uphold GINA’S privacy in 5 legislations has an uncertainty about it not being strong enough to work against state employment. The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act was created in 2006 to place jurisdictions on the voting history of racial discrimination. The research from this act allowed congress to take action towards making decisions on these issues. Approval would have to come from the attorney General or a federal court. This provision help minority voters the ability to vote and make their voice heard through the election process (Tobin, 2008).
Another concern was about racial profiling policies and procedures that needed to be changed to prohibit police from unjustly stereotyping individuals (Tobin, 2008). This bill called End Racial Profiling Act was entered into the legislations by Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Russ Feingold in 2001. The courts shouldn’t have invalidated the civil rights as it did because it didn’t put enough force on change for minorities. It has hesitantly enforced the rights of persecuted minorities and in many ways it has changed the face of the United States law and politics. I determined that GINA has been cited as a strong step forward, but I believe that the legislation does not go far enough in enabling personal control over genetic testing results. In conclusion, these cases have changed the livelihood of many people but more need to be done for better congressional. Some Courts have supported equal right while other decisions have hindered them.
Tobin, H. (2008). The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008: A Case Study of the Need For Better Congressional Responses to Federalism Jurisprudence. Retrieved from Ashford University.
Hudson, K., Holohan, M. K., & Collins, F. (2014). Keeping Pace with the Times – The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008. Retrieved from
United States Department of Labor (2009). Fact Sheet. Retrieved from