Genetic Discrimination The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has settled its first
court action challenging the use of workplace genetic testing under
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
The EEOC had sought a preliminary injunction against Burlington Northern
Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) to end genetic testing of employees who filed
claims for work-related injuries based on carpal tunnel syndrome.
EEOC sought the preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable
harm to employees who faced the impossible choice of potentially losing
their jobs or revealing their genetic makeup, says Commission
Chair Ida Castro. Our swift action in this case allows Burlington
Northern employees subjected to genetic testing to continue to work
free of retaliation and future invasions of privacy in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to EEOC officials, Burlington Northerns genetic testing
program was carried out without the knowledge or consent of its employees,
and at least one worker was threatened with termination for failing
to submit a blood sample for a genetic test.
Under the settlement, in which BNSF admits that it tested certain employees
for a genetic marker, the company agreed to not directly or indirectly
require its employees to submit blood for genetic tests.
The Drug Price Fix
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in April charged three drug makers
Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Administrative Laboratories
and American Home Products Corporation with entering into anticompetitive
agreements aimed at keeping low-cost generic drugs off the market.
The FTC administrative complaint alleges that Schering, the maker of
K-Dur 20, a widely prescribed potassium chloride supplement, illegally
paid Upsher-Smith and American Home Products millions of dollars to
induce them to delay launching their generic versions of the drug.
The agreements, the FTC said, have cost consumers more than $100 million.
K-Dur 20, a prescription potassium chloride supplement, is used to treat
patients with low blood potassium levels, a condition that most commonly
occurs in people taking certain drugs to treat high blood pressure.
The FTC alleged that Upsher-Smith and Schering settled a patent dispute
with an agreement through which Schering would pay Upsher-Smith not
to enter the market.
Under this agreement, Upsher-Smith would sell neither the product for
which it had filed with the FDA, nor any other generic version of K-Dur
20 (without regard to whether Schering had any basis to claim infringement),
until September 2001.
In exchange, Schering paid Upsher-Smith $60 million. Although under
the agreement Schering received licenses to market five of Upsher-Smiths
products, the complaint charges that these products were of little value
to Schering and that the $60 million payment had little relation to
the value of those products.
Schering said its settlements were lawful and proper and
that the company expects to vigorously challenge any action taken
by the FTC.
The ATM Charge Scam
Five years after ATM owners began imposing surcharges on non-customers,
the cost of using another banks ATM machine has nearly tripled,
from $1.01 before surcharging to $2.86 today.
A new U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) survey finds that
while in 1996 consumers paid only a single foreign ATM fee
to their own bank, averaging $1.01, to use another banks ATM,
they now pay both that foreign fee plus the new surcharge that, combined,
average $2.86 in 2001.
The survey also found that the nations biggest banks charge the
highest combined ATM transaction fees and are leading the way in charging
a new annual ATM card rental fee.
Double-dipping ATM surcharges now mean triple costs for consumers,
says Ed Mierswinski, consumer program director for U.S. PIRG. Charging
consumers twice to use the ATM only once is worse than an April Fools
joke, its part of a calculated bank strategy to boost profits:
Raise fees, invent new fees, and make it harder for consumers to avoid
fees.
On April 1, 1996, the two largest ATM networks, VISAs Plus and
Mastercards Cirrus, ended their prohibition against member banks
surcharging non-customers using their ATMs. The ATM owner keeps the
entire surcharge and receives a portion of the foreign ATM
fee nearly all banks had previously and continue to charge their own
accountholders who use other owners ATMs.
Despite the increase in the number of ATMs surcharging, PIRGs
Mierswinski says some positive signs exist.
Several cities, led by San Francisco and Santa Monica, have banned ATM
surcharging, although those bans have been blocked pending court challenge.
Iowa continues to enforce its ban on surcharging. Other cities, including
New York and Chicago, are considering bans, but until an appeal on the
California court case has been decided, the banks lawsuits will
continue to have a chilling effect on surcharge ban efforts, Mierzwinski
notes. In addition, several networks and alliances of small banks and
credit unions are aggressively marketing their own no-surcharge
and selective surcharge policies.
Russell Mokhiber
|