Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

The ruling reinstated the Lawrence employees' case to proceed with their discrimination claims. The employees sought to require the laboratory to notify all persons that were tested, destroy the test results, and provide explanations of how the medical information was used. The U.S. Department of Energy soon after the decision changed its policies requiring that clear communication occur with all employees concerning the nature of medical exams used and their results.

The Norman-Bloodsaw decision ventured into a new area of law by recognizing a constitutional right to genetic privacy in the workplace. Previous cases defining the privacy interest in medical information had typically involved disclosures to "third" parties. However, this case dealt with the collection of information by unlawful means. An employer could not conduct tests for genetic information on its employees without their consent. The court indicated that some types of medical information were more private than others and that genetic information should be treated differently from other forms of medical information. The ruling also broadened the concept of harm to the employee that was necessary to attain legal standing to file a lawsuit. The "stigmatizing" of the workplace through violation of an employees' constitutional rights was sufficient harm in itself. Previous rulings had focused on unauthorized release of such information to third parties.

Many feared genetic testing was increasingly becoming a condition of employment in corporate America. Interest in reducing health costs of the companies and illness-related absenteeism were the common objectives. By late 1998, denial of employment to individuals with certain genetic traits was legal in all but 12 states. Federal legislation prohibiting such genetic discrimination was stalled in Congress. Meanwhile, as the 20th century came to a close, the project to decode the human genetic structure neared completion. Genetic testing would be that much more informative. Fears mounted that widespread availability of personal genetic information would lead to insurance coverage and creditor issues. Organizations including the Council for Responsible Genetics and the National Breast Cancer Coalition increased their vigilance.