Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY—N.D. Ill.: Job applicant, asked about family medical history, advances GIPA case, (Aug 18, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

He sufficiently alleged that the questions he was asked constituted “genetic information” under Illinois law.

A job applicant sufficiently alleged that questions he was asked in the application process constituted “genetic information” under the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), a federal district court found. As part of the plaintiff’s job application, a third-party medical examiner questioned him about his family medical history, specifically whether family members had a history of diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, and other medical conditions, and the plaintiff provided the requested information (Foster v. Service Sanitation, Inc., No. 25 C 2101 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 14, 2025)).

Application and physical exam. The plaintiff applied for a job with the defendant, a portable sanitation company. As part of the application process, the employer required the plaintiff to undergo a physical examination, a part of which allegedly addressed family medical history, without informing applicants of their right to opt out of questions regarding their family medical history.

Medical examiner’s questions. A third-party medical examiner questioned the plaintiff about his family medical history, specifically whether family members had a history of diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, and other medical conditions, and the plaintiff provided the requested information.

The documents submitted by the third-party medical examiner to the employer indicated that the medical examiner did not perform a physical, the plaintiff had a negative drug screen, and he passed the physical ability test.

Lawsuit. The plaintiff filed suit in federal district court in Illinois, claiming that by requiring him to disclose his family medical history during the required physical examination, the employer violated GIPA. The plaintiff sought to represent both a nationwide and Illinois class of individuals subjected to the same examination. The employer moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s claim or, alternatively, to strike the nationwide class allegations.

Genetic information. The court first noted that the meaning of protected “genetic information” has been interpreted in various ways by other courts, with some taking a narrow approach that only includes “family members’ diseases or disorders that suggest another family member’s genetic predisposition to the condition” and other courts considering any request for medical history to be covered under the law.

Broad approach. Here, the court opted for a broad approach: “Although GIPA does not protect employees’ medical histories but only their genetic tests, it more broadly protects family members’ medical history, defining ‘genetic information’ to include not only family members’ genetic tests but also ‘the manifestation of a disease or disorder in family members,’” the court stated. “The definition has no limiting language indicating that the disease or disorder must be an inheritable disease.” However, the court cautioned, even under the narrower interpretation, the plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the questions he was asked constituted “genetic information” under GIPA.

Not intentional? The court also rejected the employer’s argument that it did not intentionally request genetic information, as the third party medical examiner only performed a drug screen and a physical ability test, and did not pass on family history information to the employer. That fact made no difference, the court held, because GIPA prohibits an employer from even requesting such information. Moreover, GIPA prohibits employers from “directly or indirectly” requesting genetic information, the court held, rejecting the employer’s argument that it could not be liable for any inadvertent requests made by the third-party medical examiner.

Nationwide class allegations survive. The court did not find it appropriate to strike the plaintiff’s nationwide class allegations, either, noting that the plaintiff alleged enough to suggest a substantial connection to Illinois on behalf of non-Illinois individuals subjected to the employer’s testing.

The case is No. 25 C 2101.

Attorneys: Elliot Jackson (Hedin) for Isaac Foster. Brian A. Hartstein (Quarles & Brady) for Service Sanitation, Inc.

Companies: Service Sanitation, Inc.

Cases: Privacy ClassActions StateLawClaims Procedure IllinoisNews