A compilation of these state laws is maintained by the National Conference of State Legislatures, and appears at <www.ncsl.org/programs/health/genetics.htm> (last visited October 7, 2008).
4.
GINA § 2(5); RothsteinM. A., “Is GINA Worth the Wait?”Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics36, no. 1 (2008): 174–178.
5.
HudsonK. L.HolohanM. K.CollinsF. S., “Keeping Pace with the Times — The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008,”New England Journal of Medicine358, no. 25 (2008): 2661–2663.
6.
RothsteinM. A., “Putting the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act in Context,”Genetics in Medicine10, no. 9 (2008): 655–656.
7.
GINA § 102(b).
8.
Id., at § 202.
9.
42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.
10.
Id., at § 12112(d)(3).
11.
RothsteinM. A.TalbottM. K., “Compelled Disclosure of Health Information: Protecting Against the Greatest Potential Threat to Privacy,”Journal of the American Medical Association295, no. 24 (2006): 2882–2885.
12.
42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
13.
Public Law 110–325, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. (2008).
14.
ADA Amendments Act of 2008, §§ 2(b) (2) to (b)(5). Among the restrictive decisions mentioned by Congress are Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
15.
HoffmanS., “Settling the Matter: Does Title I of the ADA Work?”Alabama Law
16.
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 § 3(4) (A).
17.
EEOC Compliance Manual, vol. 2, EEOC Order 915.002, Definition of the Term “Disability,” at 902–45, reprinted in Daily Lab. Rep., Mar. 16, 1995, at E-1, E-23.
18.
See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (asymptomatic, HIV-positive patient denied dental services in dentist's office was covered under Title III of the ADA because, for her, being HIV- positive was a substantial limitation on the major life activity of reproduction).
