Genetic Information Discrimination in NJ: When Employers Use Family Medical History Against You

Family medical history and genetic information can come up in everyday workplace settings, like health forms or insurance conversations.

Questions about family illness or assumptions about future limitations shape how an employee is viewed. Our team at Brandon J. Broderick has seen how this happens even without a formal policy in place. Employers treat these factors as business-related, but the law strictly limits how genetic information can be collected and used in employment decisions.

If an employer uses genetic information or family medical history to make decisions about an employee, it violates New Jersey anti-discrimination law and federal protections.

In this article, we explain how discrimination is evaluated under state and federal law, what qualifies as protected, how workplace decisions cross the line, and when it makes sense to speak with a New Jersey employment lawyer.

What Counts as Genetic Information Under GINA and NJ Employment Rights

Genetic information discrimination begins with something simple, like a question or an assumption. Under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), information is defined broadly. It covers a person’s genetic tests, tests of family members, and family medical history. An employer doesn’t need DNA results to cross the line. Even asking whether certain conditions run in a family can involve protected information.

These questions seem ordinary. A hiring manager sees them as part of a wellness discussion, but those questions aren’t neutral. Family medical history is protected.

The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination also treats genetic information as a protected category in employment. It also makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone for refusing to take a genetic test or for refusing to share test results. These protections are especially important in situations where an employer asks for testing or pressures workers. At times, this is framed in a way that feels like gaslighting, with employees told the request is expected.

Genetic details say nothing about how someone performs on the job. It points to risk and possibility. That is what makes it problematic in hiring and workplace decisions. An employer who sees a family history of cancer, heart disease, or other inherited conditions may start viewing the person as a future cost instead of a current employee. GINA blocks that approach.

This area overlaps with disability law, but it’s not the same. GINA focuses on predictive, family-based details. Disability law becomes more relevant once a person’s condition is diagnosed or becomes evident. 

An employer can violate GINA before the worker ever develops a condition. A job applicant doesn’t need to prove a disability to challenge the use of family medical history.

Many of these cases grow out of assumptions that should never have entered the process. Once an employer starts using inherited risk as a filter, the problem is already there.

How Employers Get Genetic Information and When It Becomes Discrimination in New Jersey

Many GINA cases start with how information is collected. 

Federal law limits how genetic data is used in hiring, firing, pay, or promotions. It also restricts employers from requesting, requiring, or obtaining it, except in narrow situations. The question itself is the problem, even before any job decision is made.

Common examples include:

• Pre-employment forms that ask about illnesses affecting parents, children, or siblings
• Post-offer exams that include questions about family conditions
• Fitness-for-duty evaluations that go beyond the employee’s actual job limitations
• Wellness programs or pharmacy-related processes that ask about family 
• Direct requests for genetic test results
• Collection of sensitive data through third-party vendors that is later used in employment decisions

EEOC guidance is clear on this point. Employers are expected to tell health care providers not to collect family medical history during employment-related exams. That applies to post-offer exams, fitness-for-duty certification, and other disability-related medical exams. The line is easy to cross if the wrong questions are asked.

DNA Testing Practices by Employer and Where the Problem Often Appears First

Hiring forms are a common source of problems. A question about whether serious illnesses run in an applicant’s family seems routine. Under GINA, it counts as a request.

In 2023, the EEOC’s case against Dollar General settled for $1 million, along with changes to the company’s screening practices. The agency alleged that warehouse applicants were required to disclose family medical history during the hiring process. 

The Fabricut, Inc. case (2013) was a landmark settlement. The EEOC said the employer violated GINA by requiring an applicant to answer questions about family medical history during a post-offer exam. It showed how a routine employment physical turns into a legal problem when the wrong questions are used.

In Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services, the employer required employees to submit cheek swabs as part of an effort to investigate workplace misconduct. The case became widely known because it showed that GINA allows for forced DNA collection in the workplace.

Employers in New Jersey cannot demand DNA testing by pointing to a business interest. State law protects workers who refuse. Federal law also limits when employers can obtain that information at all.

Employers often point to an outside provider to avoid responsibility. Our team at Brandon J. Broderick has seen how that argument falls apart when the employer sets the process in motion. The law focuses on the employment-related collection of the data, not the person who asked for it.

Why Family Medical History Should Not Influence Hiring in New Jersey

Employers see these decisions as cautious instead of discriminatory. But a family history of cancer doesn’t say how someone will perform on the job. 

The issue comes from treating history as a prediction of future illness. Federal law treats those assumptions as improper use of genetic information. The EEOC’s fact sheet gives an example of an employer reassigning an employee after learning about a family history of heart disease. GINA prevents employers from acting on what they think might happen later.

This issue often begins in hiring. Medical exams during hiring and post-offer evaluations are tightly regulated. When an applicant answers a question or shares personal details, and the employer starts thinking about attendance or insurance costs, the decision has already crossed into unlawful territory. Similar problems arise when employers turn to restricted tools like lie detector tests. 

The problem can continue after hiring. Employers may push certain services or start viewing employees as a cost concern. In its 2024 case against Factor One Source Pharmacy, the EEOC alleged the company pressured workers to use its pharmacy for expensive hemophilia treatments to increase profits. 

Employees who refused were let go, while those who complied kept their jobs, even with worse performance. The case shows how genetic testing and disability-related issues can intersect without becoming the same claim. That overlap matters when only 22.8% of people with disabilities were employed in 2025.

Harassment based on this data violates the law. Once family medical history turns into offensive gossip or ridicule, the issue shifts into everyday workplace treatment.

GINA doesn’t allow broader impact claims. From what we see in our work, most cases come down to direct conduct, like asking for genetic data, using it in a decision, retaliating, or sharing it. Details matter, including the wording of a form or a comment in an email.

For many workers, it starts with a sense that something crossed the line. In our experience, that feeling is often right. When an employer shifts from job performance to inherited risk, it is often time to seek legal guidance.

How GINA Employment Rights Shape Privacy and Confidentiality

Both federal and New Jersey law treat genetic information as sensitive data that should not move through ordinary personnel channels. Written documentation must be kept in separate medical files and handled as confidential records.

Improper collection, storage, or disclosure of sensitive data can lead to stigma and discrimination in the workplace. It also sets limits on how DNA samples are handled and when they can be disclosed. In New Jersey, confidentiality is a central part of the protection.

Common facts include:

• A hiring or medical form asked about family conditions or disabilities
• A third-party examiner collected sensitive details during a job-related exam
• Emails or internal notes show the employer reviewed or discussed personal details
• A manager tied a hiring or workplace decision to future illness or cost concerns
• Genetic data was shared more broadly than necessary
• An employee objected or declined to provide results and faced negative treatment afterward 

Retaliation and Refusal-to-Test Under NJ Law

Sometimes, a claim starts when a worker pushes back. If an employee objects to an improper question, refuses to provide genetic test results, or takes part in an investigation, the employer cannot respond with retaliation.

Common retaliation situations include:

• A worker refuses to answer a family history question during hiring, and the job offer disappears
• An employee objects to a questionnaire and then faces discipline or lost opportunities
• A worker refuses a requested DNA test, and management treats the refusal as disqualifying
• A complaint about genetic information leads to write-ups or termination 

These issues often grow out of routine processes: post-offer exams, onboarding forms, fitness-for-duty checks, or everyday conversations. Once the data is collected, the focus shifts to who saw it, why it was gathered, and what happened next.

A single question on a form affects how an employee is treated. But employers are expected to make decisions based on performance, not inherited risk.

If something feels too personal or out of bounds, it is worth taking a closer look. Early legal guidance can help clarify your rights and next steps. 

Contact us today for a free consultation.