Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, April 7, 1995                   TAG: 9504070087
SECTION: BUSINESS                    PAGE: B-6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: The Washington Post
DATELINE: WASHINGTON                                LENGTH: Medium

EEOC: EMPLOYER CAN'T DISCRIMINATE ON GENETICS

The commission's finding, released quietly last month as part of a larger document clarifying the definition of ``disability'' under the ADA, has potentially enormous implications. It is the first federal document to declare that it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against a worker on the basis of his or her genetic makeup.

The EEOC interpretation has yet to be tested in court, and does not address the question of whether insurance companies may deny health insurance to people with abnormal genes.

But experts said the EEOC's interpretation of the law is likely to make people more willing to take advantage of a growing array of new genetic tests that can identify vulnerability to specific diseases, sometimes allowing more effective prevention or treatment. Many patients are reluctant to undergo such tests because of fear that the results will be used against them.

``This solves a huge dilemma that's been sitting there without an obvious solution,'' said Francis S. Collins, director of the federal Center for Human Genome Research. ``This is wonderful news for the American public.''

Paul Steven Miller, one of the five EEOC commissioners, said the bipartisan commission's unanimous decision to include genetic discrimination under the terms of the ADA did not amount to a new rule, but was an interpretation of the law that had never been clearly spelled out before. The law on genetic discrimination should be clear, he said:

``It is illegal.''

Some doctors are offering genetic tests to predict people's risks of developing certain diseases - including heart disease, Alzheimer's disease and certain cancers - and to help parents predict their chances of passing disease genes to their children.

Although often inexact, the tests can help people make medical and lifestyle decisions that in some cases may prevent or delay the onset of disease.

But bad news on such tests might also convince a potential employer to hire someone else, or might inspire an employer to fire a worker pre-emptively to avoid the possibility of lost work days or higher employer-paid health-insurance premiums.

``We know there are many people at risk of genetic disorders who refuse to be tested because they are afraid of losing their jobs,'' said Mark Rothstein, director of the Health Law and Policy Institute at the University of Houston. ``This says that fear will perhaps be dissipated because there is legal protection.''

No one knows how often genetic discrimination occurs, but doctors report hearing of a growing number of incidents of such discrimination, said Paul R. Billings, a professor of medicine at Stanford University who tracks the issue.