Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY—N.D. Ill.: Employees’ GINA suit against City of Chicago fails to survive summary judgment, (Jul 9, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

Personal health information, like height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and triglyceride levels, do not qualify as genetic information under GINA.

A suit brought by two employees against the City of Chicago for violations of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act failed to survive summary judgment, ruled a federal district court in Illinois. The employees alleged that the city violated GINA by requiring them and their spouses to provide “genetic information” without first obtaining their consent, when they enrolled in a wellness program established by the city. The court determined that one employee’s claims were simply untrue, and that the other employee’s claims could not stand as no genetic information was ever collected from either him or his spouse (Burris v. City of Chicago, No. 20 C 420 (N.D. Ill. July 7, 2025)).

Wellness program. Both employees worked for the city and their spouses received healthcare coverage through the city. The employees alleged that the city violated GINA by requiring them and their spouses to provide “genetic information” without first obtaining their consent, when they enrolled in the Chicago Lives Healthy Wellness program.

The city and participating labor unions created the wellness program in 2011. The program intended to reduce out-of-pocket medical expenses by helping participants improve their health. Participation was 100 percent free of cost to covered employees and their spouses, but a $50 increase per person in their monthly healthcare coverage contribution was imposed upon nonparticipants.

Biometric screening. At certain times, participants in the program were required to undergo biometric screening and submit a well-being assessment questionnaire. The biometric screening included a physician screening, where the participant’s physician documented height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, total cholesterol, low- and high-density lipoprotein, fasting glucose, and triglycerides. The questionnaire elicited similar information and asked about the participant’s medical history, including smoking and drinking habits, diagnoses with certain conditions, mental health, and whether they were taking certain medications. Participants were not required to answer every question, and no penalty was imposed for refraining from disclosing their medical history. The city never received results of an individual’s biometric screening or questionnaire.

Employees. Of the employees who filed this action, one, along with his wife, chose not to enroll in program and were charged the $50 fee for their lack of participation. The other employee and his wife chose to participate in the program and completed their biometric screenings and questionnaires in 2019.

Both employees argued that the city violated GINA by acquiring their genetic information without “prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization.” GINA provides that it is unlawful for employers “to request, require, or purchase genetic information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee.”

The city moved for summary judgment, arguing that the GINA claims failed because: (1) neither employee established that the city ever acquired their (or their spouses’) genetic information; and (2) even if the city acquired genetic information via the wellness program, the acquisition would be voluntary and therefore not in violation of GINA.

GINA claims. In addressing the employees’ claims, the court found the threshold issue of whether the city acquired genetic information of the employees to be dispositive.

Claims untrue. According to the nonparticipating employee, the city obtained genetic information when his spouse completed a questionnaire during their enrollment in the program. However, the city contended he failed to establish that fact through discovery.

Notwithstanding his allegations in the complaint, the employee stated in his answers to the city’s interrogatories that his “wife was not allowed to participate in the [Wellness Program] since I chose not to participate,” and that neither of them provided any “genetic information,” as defined by GINA because he “felt it was too intrusive and illegal....” He further verified this statement during his deposition when he admitted that, as far as he knew, the city has never requested genetic information from him or his spouse. The record also reflected that the employee incurred charges only for his lack of participation in the program during the relevant period.

In sum, the undisputed record, including the employee’s own testimony, established that his allegations related to his GINA claim were simply not true. Thus, summary judgment was granted in favor of the city on the nonparticipating employee’s GINA claim.

No genetic information. The participating employee also asserted that his spouse provided genetic information to the city via a questionnaire during their enrollment in the program. The city acknowledged their enrollment but argued that his spouse did not provide “genetic information” as defined by GINA. The court agreed.

Under GINA, “genetic information” includes information about an individual’s genetic tests, genetic tests of family members, and the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members. In turn, “genetic test” means “an analysis of human DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, or metabolites, that detects genotypes, mutations, or chromosomal changes.” However, “genetic information” does not include “information about the sex or age of any individual” and “genetic test” does not include “an analysis of proteins or metabolites that does not detect genotypes, mutations, or chromosomal changes.”

The court previously dismissed the GINA claims of other plaintiffs because it found that they pled disclosure of personal health information, like height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose, and triglyceride levels, which do not qualify as genetic information under GINA.

Here, the court found that there was no evidence on which a jury could reasonably find for the employee because he failed to establish a triable issue of fact on the dispositive question of whether he or his spouse provided genetic information to the city. Conclusory allegations are simply not enough to avoid summary judgment, said the court. Thus, the city was also entitled to summary judgment on the participating employee’s GINA claims.

The case is No. 20 C 420.

Judge: Hunt, L.

Attorneys: Allison Katherine Muth (The Justice Law Group) for Glenn Williams. Amy Lynne Brammell, City of Chicago Department of Law, for City of Chicago.

Companies: Elev8 Baltimore, Inc.

Cases: Privacy CoverageLiability PublicEmployees IllinoisNews