Prohibits employers from discriminating against employees due to their medical history. (8/1/22)
Impact
The introduction of SB92 is expected to have substantial implications for employment laws in Louisiana. By explicitly forbidding discrimination based on medical information, the bill aligns state laws with broader national trends towards protecting employees from health-related discrimination. This change is particularly pertinent in industries where health data may influence hiring and retention practices, and it mandates that any medical inquiries made by employers be justified, protecting applicants and employees from unwarranted scrutiny regarding their health histories.
Summary
Senate Bill 92, sponsored by Senator Cathey, aims to strengthen protections against employment discrimination based on medical history and genetic information. The bill amends existing state laws to specifically prohibit employers from discriminating against employees or applicants because of their medical information or medical history. By doing so, SB92 seeks to ensure that all members of the workforce are judged solely on their qualifications and performance, rather than their health background.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding SB92 reflects a necessary evolution in workplace rights, as advocates argue that discrimination based on medical history perpetuates inequality and hinders individuals from securing employment. Supporters of the bill emphasize that it protects vulnerable groups who may face prejudice due to chronic illnesses or genetic predispositions. However, there may be concerns from some employers about the implications for workplace safety and health assessments, leading to a nuanced discussion about balancing employee privacy with employer responsibilities.
Contention
Notable points of contention regarding SB92 arise from the bill's provisions related to exceptions for requesting medical information. While the bill allows for the collection of medical data under specific circumstances, there are concerns that these exceptions might be misused to circumvent the nondiscrimination mandates. Critics argue that without stringent oversight, employers may still find loopholes that allow for discrimination against qualified individuals. Thus, the effectiveness of the bill will largely depend on the enforcement mechanisms established alongside it.
Provides that retaliation against an employee for an absence from work due to genetic testing or a medically necessary cancer screening shall be an unlawful employment practice. (8/1/23)
Labor: fair employment practices; employees who perform certain lawful activities during nonworking hours; prohibit employers from discriminating against. Creates new act.