Search Articles
RALEIGH, N.C. (CN) — A police officer filed a class action against a North Carolina city Monday, claiming that it is discriminating against public servants based on their genetic information.
The City of Gastonia — located outside of Charlotte, North Carolina — has been discriminating against police officers and firefighters at least since 2009, police officer Brad Bumgardner claimed on Monday, saying the city requires employees to provide family health information in order to continue working in their positions.
Under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, employers are not allowed to factor in genetic information when making employment decisions, nor are they allowed to request or require that employees disclose it. Certain exceptions exist, including genetic information voluntarily provided as part of an employer-sponsored wellness program.
But this information was not voluntarily provided, Bumgardner said, and if an employee refused to fill out the forms, they would be moved to light-duty or face “other adverse actions related to their employment.”
The city requires police officers and firefighters to fill out a medical exam questionnaire biannually and disclose family medical and genetic information. This includes information about significant medical problems, diseases or disorders developed by the employee’s immediate family, including their siblings, parents and grandparents. A physical exam is also done concurrently, during which the city solicits additional information regarding a history of cancer, heart issues and blood pressure levels among family members.
Based on this information, the city then requires some employees to complete additional testing — at their own expense. Bumgardner, who has diabetes, was required to pay for additional medical testing and treatments, including vision checks.
Requesting this information and requiring it be provided to an employer are both violations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Bumgardner said.
“Defendant unlawfully requested and sought genetic information about Plaintiff and a class of employees of the City or Defendant (Police Officers and Firefighters) for continued employment, by requiring them to provide personal genetic information and family medical information in direct violation of GINA,” Bumgardner said.
Gastonia also refused to go through a reasonable accommodation process that would have allowed Bumgardner to decline the medical questionnaire, the physical or the followup testing and treatment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, he said.
This request for genetic information was not “inadvertent,” Bumgardner said.
“The scope and breadth of testing and health information sought was not all related to the performance of the essential functions of the police officers and firefighters, nor was the scope or breadth of information sought a business necessity for Defendant,” he said in his suit.
Both the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice issued him right to sue letters. Bumgardner can bring the suit against the city, because it purchased liability insurance or participated in a local government risk pool, and therefore waived sovereign or governmental immunity.
The EEOC sued over similar claims in New York in 2014 and secured a settlement against a home care agency in 2016. The company had asked employees questions about their family medical history on an employee health assessment form. The settlement agreement required the agency to stop requesting genetic information from applicants and employees and required it to pay out $125,000 to employees.
Dollar General also agreed to pay $1 million in 2023 after it was sued by the EEOC in 2017 for screening out job applicants who had disabilities. It had required applicants to pass pre-employment medical exams in which they had to divulge the medical histories of their family members.
Bumgardner is asking the court to declare that the city violated his federal rights and to prohibit the use of medical questionnaires that violate employee rights. He’s seeking damages in excess of $100,000.
A representative for the city did not immediately reply to a request for comment Monday evening.
Follow @SKHaulenbeek
Follow @shaulenbeek.bsky.socialSubscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.