Preplacement Examinations and Job-Relatedness: How to Enhance Privacy and Diminish Discrimination in the Workplace

Medical testing in the workplace is raising growing concern in light of increasingly available genetic tests and what is perceived as a general assault on individual privacy in the United States. Almost seventy percent of major U.S. firms require individuals who receive job offers to undergo medical testing prior to the commencement of employment, and the law does not restrict the scope of these examinations. Thus, employers test job candidates not only for fitness for duty and use of illegal substances, but also for a variety of conditions including susceptibility to workplace hazards, breast and colon cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV infection, sickle cell anemia, pregnancy, and Huntington Disease. Over fifteen percent of employers require applicants to provide family medical histories, nearly forty percent utilize psychological testing, and a small percentage already conduct genetic testing. This article explores the legal and policy implications of preplacement medical examinations. It recommends that the Americans with Disabilities Act be amended so that it would prohibit employers from conducting preplacement examinations that are not job-related. The author argues that non-job-related medical testing constitutes an unjustifiable invasion of the examinee\u27s privacy and creates temptations and opportunities for discrimination on the part of employers. Furthermore, individuals who undergo testing and receive unexpected and distressing results without obtaining appropriate counseling may suffer significant psychological trauma. For employers, medical examinations that are not job-related constitute an unnecessary financial expenditure and create a risk of litigation based on invasion of privacy, discrimination, and other theories. In addition, invasive medical testing can erode morale and productivity in the workplace