Evidence: officially disclosed. Imported from the supplied 65-Case Master Edition, dated September 19, 2026. Source links and classifications are retained as an attributed case account; import is not an independent source review.
Case at a glance
- Case number
- 039
- Date / range
- 2013
- Sector
- Discrimination and institutional use
- Genetic asset
- Family medical history in a medical examination
- Security principle
- Family History Is Genetic Information
Event summary
The EEOC's 2013 Fabricut settlement—widely described as its first GINA lawsuit—showed that employers can violate genetic-information rules by requesting family medical history during pre-employment medical evaluation, even without sequencing DNA.
Source: eeoc.gov — Fabricut And The First EEOC GINA Settlement source 1.
The case in context
Fabricut demonstrates how genetic information can enter a hiring process through ordinary questions about relatives. No genome sequencing is required for a family medical history to disclose sensitive familial information. The EEOC matter also involved disability-discrimination allegations, which should be distinguished from the genetic-information issue.
Forms and outside medical providers are part of an employer's information system. A policy against unnecessary genetic collection needs to reach the questionnaire used in practice. The settlement illustrates that governance boundary without turning the agreed resolution into a trial finding.
Acquisition and processing
conditional job offer → medical questionnaire → family history acquisition → hiring decision context → EEOC action
The sequence of events
- conditional job offer
- medical questionnaire
- family history acquisition
- hiring decision context
- EEOC action
What became inferable or exposed
Family medical history in a medical examination
The EEOC's 2013 Fabricut settlement—widely described as its first GINA lawsuit—showed that employers can violate genetic-information rules by requesting family medical history during pre-employment medical evaluation, even without sequencing DNA.
Affected parties and consent
- Direct parties
- The applicant and relatives described in the history
- Indirect parties
- Connected institutions, communities, or resource users; no affected-person total is assigned.
- Direct count
- Unknown / not assigned
- Indirect count
- Unknown / not assigned
- Consent status
- The employment relationship can constrain a person’s choice. A general medical examination does not explain or authorize every genetic-information request.
Security dimensions
Confidentiality
The confidentiality question concerns family medical history in a medical examination. Exposure and further inference must be distinguished from the fact of collection or availability.
Integrity
The integrity question is whether the described material, permissions, processing, or interpretation can be relied upon. Family History Is Genetic Information identifies the particular boundary examined here.
Availability
Access and continuity are assessed for the described event; potential effects are not presented as confirmed outages or losses.
Provenance
The relevant chain follows family medical history in a medical examination through the stages shown below. Missing public detail is not proof that internal records did not exist.
Consent, persistence, and relational exposure
Consent
The employment relationship can constrain a person’s choice. A general medical examination does not explain or authorize every genetic-information request.
Persistence
Later reuse depends on the actual asset and links to other records; no future misuse is asserted.
Relational exposure
Connected institutions, communities, or resource users; no affected-person total is assigned.
Case-specific assessment
confidentiality high; consent constrained; discrimination critical; persistence moderate.
GeneticSecurity.org analysis
Genetic Exposure Radius
No single level is assigned where the supplied dossier gives a range, conditional outcome, or broad institutional consequence. The affected parties and proposed assessment are shown separately.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Genetic Persistence Risk
Persistence depends on the specific biological material or information retained. A potential effect is not treated as an observed genomic disclosure.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Genetic Provenance Integrity
A numeric provenance level is not inferred from the existence of a source or court record. It requires evidence of the relevant custody and processing controls.
Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.
Proposed classification and its limits
Suggested GER: GER-1/2. Suggested GPR: GPR-2/3. GPI: not central.
These are proposed classifications from the supplied case dossier. Conditional scores describe an assumed exposure; they are not evidence that it occurred. A single numeric value is left unassigned when the asset or outcome is not sufficiently bounded.
What this case does not prove
A settlement is not a trial finding. The allegations and agreed relief remain distinct.
Mitigations and lessons
- Remove family-history questions
- Segregate occupational health records
- Train vendors
- Audit forms
- Restrict post-offer exams to job-related needs
- Enforce no-use rules
Primary sources
Secondary sources
No additional source listed. See the evidence notes for limitations.
Policy and standards
Genetic Security Policy and StandardsReview and correction history
Source edition: September 19, 2026. Imported case account; no substantive corrections recorded.
Correction policy and logCite this case
GS-CASE-039. Fabricut: Family Medical History Entered the Hiring Room. GeneticSecurity.org. https://geneticsecurity.org/cases/039-fabricut-first-eeoc-gina-settlement/