## Facts

- Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services (Atlanta), LLC operated warehouses storing grocery products.
- An unknown individual repeatedly defecated in a warehouse, prompting an internal investigation.
- Atlas required certain employees, including Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds, to submit buccal (cheek) swabs.
- A laboratory analyzed DNA from the cheek swabs and compared it to DNA extracted from the fecal matter to identify the perpetrator.
- The comparison excluded Lowe and Reynolds as matches.
- Lowe and Reynolds sued Atlas under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), alleging Atlas unlawfully requested and obtained their genetic information.
- Atlas contended the testing fell outside GINA because it was used only for identification, not for medical, disease, or predisposition information.

## Issues

1. Whether employer-compelled DNA analysis comparing employees’ buccal-swab DNA to DNA from workplace fecal matter constitutes “genetic information” (information about an individual’s “genetic tests”) under GINA.
2. Whether Atlas’s request for and acquisition of that information violated GINA’s prohibition on employer requests for genetic information.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability and denied Atlas’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held the DNA analysis performed on plaintiffs’ cheek swabs was a “genetic test” under GINA’s statutory definition.
- Because “genetic information” includes information about an individual’s genetic tests, the resulting comparison information was covered by GINA.
- Atlas violated GINA by requesting and obtaining plaintiffs’ genetic information, regardless of Atlas’s non-medical purpose.

## Legal Principles

- GINA prohibits employers from requesting, requiring, or purchasing an employee’s “genetic information.”
- “Genetic information” includes information about an individual’s “genetic tests.”
- A “genetic test” includes analysis of human DNA (among other biological material) that detects genotypes, mutations, or chromosomal changes.
- The statutory definition is not limited to tests performed for medical or disease-related purposes; identification-motivated DNA testing can still be a covered genetic test.
- On summary judgment, where the material facts are undisputed, statutory interpretation determines whether the employer’s conduct falls within GINA’s prohibitions.

## Conclusion

The court held that employer-directed DNA cheek-swab testing used to identify a workplace wrongdoer constituted a covered “genetic test,” making the resulting information “genetic information” under GINA; Atlas therefore violated GINA by requesting and obtaining the employees’ DNA for comparison purposes.


Lowe v. Atlas Logistics Grp. Retail Servs. (Atlanta), LLC, 102 F. Supp. 3d 1360 (N.D. Ga. 2015)