NOTE RE: #4: The EEOC’s GINA Regulations prohibit employers from researching medical databases or court records, even where such databases are publicly available, for the purpose of obtaining genetic information about an employee or his/her family.
The opposition definition comes from Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County. This case involved an employer, while investigating rumors of sexual harassment by a supervisor, asked Crawford, whether she had witnessed any inappropriate behavior. She told the employer about a series of harassing acts by the supervisor toward herself. The employer did not discipline the supervisor and fired Crawford. Crawford filed suit under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, which prohibits an employer from terminating a worker because she “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.” The question before the Supreme Court was whether simply disclosing an act of harassment in an answer to a question constitutes “oppos[ing]” an unlawful practice, or whether opposition within the meaning of the provisions requires something more assertive. The Court unanimously concluded that the ordinary meaning of “oppose” includes giving a “disapproving account” of unlawful behavior, even if the employee takes no further action on her own to seek to stop or remedy the conduct.
Number 6 could occur if an employer reads an employee or application’s post on a social networking site about the medical status of a family member. Internet “snooping” may be subject to GINA.
Broadly Construed : For example, if an employee submits a request for bereavement leave which indicates that the employee’s mother died of ovarian cancer, this is “family medical history” which falls under GINA’s protections. This document should be kept in the employee’s separate medical file, and supervisors need to understand how broadly and literally GINA’s confidentiality provisions are.