Delaware's General Assembly put to rest several bills that would have had substantial negative impact on the State's employers.  The 144th General Assembly concluded on June 30th without having passed several controversial pieces of legislation.  Here are the highlights:

Independent Contractors 

Perhaps the most controversial bill that died on June 30 was House Bill 468. This bill, called the Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act would have imposed substantial penalties on contractors who improperly classify their employees, including fines, terms of imprisonment, and loss of business licenses. A previous blog post discusses this bill in greater detail, see Construction-Industry Employers Should Be Aware of Proposed Legislation

 

Sexual-Orientation Discrimination

A bill prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment as well as housing, public works contracting, public accommodations, and insurance and grants was shot down again. Senate Bill 144 was the just latest attempt to expand the anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation.   Although this bill was defeated, it is sure to be resurrected in the next General Assembly, just as it has for the last nine years.

 

Elimination of Employment At-Will

Another perennial loser, a bill eliminating the employment at-will doctrine, was again sent to its grave. House Bill 327 never got out of committee.

 

Minimum Wage Bills

Finally, two bills that would have increased the minimum wage expired on June 30. Senate Bill 204 would have increased the minimum wage from $7.15 per hour to $7.75 per hour effective March 1, 2009, and from $7.75 per hour to $8.25 per hour effective March 1, 2010. If passed, Delaware's minimum wage would have been the highest in the nation.

And, Senate Bill 280  would have increased the minimum wage for "tipped" employees on January 1 of each year through 2012.  The rate would have increased from the current $2.23 per hour to $2.51 per hour on January 1, 2009; to $2.86 per hour on January 1, 2010; to $3.32 per hour on January 1, 2011; and to$3.57 per hour on January 1, 2012.  The minimum wage for “tipped” employees has been $2.23 per hour since 1987.

Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act (H.R. 5781) Passes the House

The FMLA mandates that employers of a certain size give parents 12 weeks’ leave, and allow them to return to the same or substantially similar position. But with the exception of a few states who have enacted states requiring that some amount of this leave be paid, employers have no obligation to pay for any parental leave.

That may soon change for the nation’s largest employer. On June 19, 2008, the House passed the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act (H.R. 5781) by a 278-146 vote. H.R. 5781 provides federal employees with four weeks of paid parental leave after the birth or adoption of a child. A bipartisan companion bill has been introduced in the Senate. Stay tuned until after the November elections to see what kind of momentum this one builds!

Workplace Flexibility Across Borders

The Institute for Women’s Policy Research in conjunction with the Center for WorkLife Law recently released “Statutory Routes to Workplace Flexibility in Cross-National Perspective.” The report presents an interesting statutory overview of what 21 high income countries, including the U.S., are doing or not doing in the area of workplace flexibility. Many of these countries have some form of “flexible working statutes,” which put the burden on the employer to defend why it will not allow a flexible working schedule.

The report notes U.S. legislation—the U.S. Working Families Flexibility Act—which was introduced by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney and modeled after the United Kingdom and New Zealand laws. Intrigued? You can read the whole report on WorkLife Law’s website.

The construction industry should be aware already that the state and federal legislatures, as well as several agencies, have focused (unwanted) attention its way.  The recent wave of immigration reform has targeted construction, especially.  And, because the construction industry is generally considered to have a high rate of misclassified employees working as independent contractors, it has been singled out in a new piece of legislation that has been sweeping silently through state legislatures.  We've written here before about these proposed laws: Pennsylvania House Passes Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act, as well as Construction-Industry Employers Face Criminal Penalties and Increased Fines Under Proposed Law.

Bill Bowser and I spoke yesterday about Construction-Industry Employers Should Be Aware of Proposed Legislation at a seminar for the Delaware Contractors Association. It was clear from the discussion that the Delaware bill proposes a serious risk for employers in the construction industry and beyond.  The Department of Labor reports that the top 4 industries for misclassification are (1) landscaping; (2) nail salons; (3) dental assistants; and (4) construction.  It's likely that the law, if passed, and especially if it starts to generate the revenues advocates claim it will, that similar laws will be passed for other industries, or state-wide generally. 

With potentially criminal penalties and extraordinary fines, this piece of legislation would have a major impact on employers in the construction industry with widespread effects across the other industries, as well.

Dan Schwartz, at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog reported that his State is facing a similar proposal.  Obviously, this is a catchy idea.  Or, more likely, it has some organized supporters who have been lobbying quietly for such a bill. 

Employers should be aware of several employment and labor law initiatives in the state and federal legislatures.  Congress currently is considering the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), and the RESPECT Act, for starters. And the Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act, which was quietly passed by the Delaware and Pennsylvania Houses poses serious risks to employers in the construction trade.

Employee Free Choice Act

The EFCA could be a silent killer.  It has managed to keep a very low profile during its months-long visit to Capital Hill.  In short, it would eliminate the secret-ballot vote and would require employers to recognize a labor union without an election.  The long-unchanged law currently requires employers to choose between recognizing the union and a secret-ballot election if more than 50% of employees in a bargaining unit sign a union authorization card. 

If passed, the EFCA would change this procedure entirely.  Employers would have to recognize the labor union immediately if more than half of the workforce signs union cards.  And, to make it worse, there's not much an employer can do about it.  Union campaigns can be fully underway before the employer even learns about it.  And interference in card-gathering activities would subject the employer to civil penalties.

RESPECT Act

The unfortunately named RESPECT Act poses another labor-related threat to employers in the construction industry.  The "Re-Empowerment of Skilled and Professional Employees and Construction Tradeworkers Act" would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by redefining the definition of "supervisor."  If passed, the RESPECT Act would eliminate the current requirement to obtain supervisor-classification that the employee must posses the authority to assign work to others and to responsibly direct employees.  Instead, the definition of supervisor would be much more difficult to satisfy.  The proposed definition would require the employee to exercise authority over employees for a majority of his or her working time.

There is a giant leap from possessing authority and exercising that authority for a majority of working time. 

We've posted about the state-level initiatives that would criminalize misclassification of employees as independent contractors that have passed the House both in Delaware and in Pennsylvania.  It may be that the definition of "independent contractor" becomes key in avoiding a criminal conviction.  The EEOC provides a non-exclusive list of 17 factors, as well as examples of the factors in use, for use in making that determination.

Helpful Resources

Kris Dunn at The HR Capitalist has a persuasive post about the Employee Free Choice Act and the potential catastrophe it could cause if passed.

The American Nurses Association, which is very pro-RESPECT Act, has a current list of the legislators who support the bill--check to see if your state's legislator is one of the them.  If he or she is on the list, put pen to paper and tell your elected officials what you and the entire industry stand to lose if the RESPECT Act is passed.

Sheldon Sandler reported earlier this week about a law passed by the Delaware House that would criminalize employment laws.  Pennsylvania has passed a law nearly identical to the Delaware bill.  In case you missed Sheldon's post, here's a recap that includes the details of the laws of both states.

Like Delaware, Pennsylvania's version of the Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act proposes to penalizes employers in the commercial or residential building construction industry for intentionally evading certain state employment laws, such as the Minimum Wage Act, the Wage Payment and Collection Law, the Unemployment Compensation Law, and the Workers’ Compensation Act.

The law sanctions both intentional and negligent misclassifications of workers. An employer that intentionally misclassifies an employee will be charged with a third-degree felony and could face a fine of up to $15,000, imprisonment of up to three and a half years, or both, for a first offense.  Subsequent convictions could result in fines of up to $30,000,  imprisonment of up to seven years, or both.

Negligent misclassification carries penalties of up to $1,000 per offense, and possible administrative fines.

The Attorney General may also issue a stop-work order, which requires the employer to cease all business operations until Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Labor and Industry lifts the order or the employee is properly ­classified. In addition, the employer may be subject to a civil action for damages brought by an employee, or the employee’s union, claiming improper classification.

The Act also  includes an anti-retaliation provision. 

If the bill succeeds with the Pennsylvania Senate and is signed (as is expected) by Governor Rendell, the legislation could become effective as early as January 1, 2009.

Delaware employers who've not heard of "The Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act" should pay close attention to this post.  Every business with employees working in Delaware should be aware of this bill, HB 468, introduced yesterday in the Delaware General Assembly, and the many repercussions it could cause. 

Proposed Bill Would Target Delaware Employers in the Construction Industry

 

"The Construction Industry Independent Contractors Act,” apparently is on the fast track for approval at the state legislative level.  Although its name indicates that it reaches construction-industry employers, the proposed bill has potential implications for all employers.

In short, the bill purports to penalize employers who improperly classify construction employees as independent contractors.

In essence, it provides that all construction industry workers are “deemed to be” employees unless:

1. the workers are “free from control or direction;”
2. the work is “outside” the employer’s usual business; and
3. the person is “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business."

 

Employers Could Face Jail Time for Misclassification

 

An employer who fails to “properly classify” a person as an employee, even unwittingly, is subject to fines and imprisonment for up to 90 days. If done knowingly, the fine can be as much as $10,000 and the prison term as much as 6 months. In addition, the Secretary of Labor can impose administrative penalties, debar the employer from state projects, and even require the employer to cease operations.  And as if those measures aren't enough, an individual who claims to be the victim of misclassification, or his or her union, can bring a civil action for damages, including a class action.

This draconian legislation, if enacted, would expose construction industry employers to financial ruin. Class action lawsuits are invited, and the language is constructed in such a way that virtually every person who works on a construction project would be viewed as an employee.

 

The Potential Consequences of the Independent Contractors Act

 

But why stop with construction employers? The same rationale would seem to be applicable generally to employers, so the next step would seem to be to expand the scope of the legislation to cover all employers. Interested businesses and business associations beware – this bill must be stopped!

The full text of the bill can be seen at the Delaware General Assembly website.

Federal employment laws often track state-law trends. And, across the country, proposals for paid and unpaid leave have become frequent visitors in state legislatures.  Employers should be aware of these proposals, even if your state hasn't yet been affected.  Are these new laws a sign of what's to come?

 

New Jersey Paid Family Leave

In April 2008, New Jersey became the third state in the nation to enact paid family leave legislation. The new law, which goes into effect in January 2009, will extend the State's existing temporary disability insurance (TDI) system to provide workers with family leave benefits to care for sick family members or newborn or newly adopted children. The legislation will provide 6 weeks of TDI benefits (two-thirds wage replacement up to maximum of $524 in 2008) for a worker taking leave.  Employees will be subject to an additional payroll deduction to finance the leave.  Workers will be able to take paid leave beginning in July 2009.

Paid Sick Leave In California

On Thursday, May 29, 2008, the California approved a bill that, if successful, would require that state's employers to provide paid sick days.  California would be the first state in the country to mandate paid sick time. 

Who Is Covered?

As drafted, the law would require businesses with more than 10 employees to provide at least 9 days of paid leave.  Businesses with 10 or fewer employees would be required to provide 5 days of paid time off.

An employee would become eligible for leave after 90 days of employment.  Every employee who works in the State for at least 7 days during the calendar year would qualify.

The sick days could be used for personal illness, the illness of a family member, or to recover from domestic violence or sexual assault.

What Are Employers Required to Do?

In addition to providing the paid leave, employers would have to comply with posting, notice and recordkeeping requirements.  And failure to do so could result in state enforcement through the Department of Industrial Relations, but could also serve as the basis for a civil suit.

One thing the law would not require employers to do is to pay employees for accrued but unused time off at the time of separation. 

The bill went to the state Senate on Friday.  Governor Schwarzenegger has not indicated his position on the proposed law.

Domestic Violence Leave in Washington

 

Effective April 1, 2008, all Washington employers, regardless of size, must provide "reasonable leave" for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. 

Who Is Covered?

Eligible employees include victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.  The law also protects the employee's family members, which is defined by the statute and includes someone with whom the employee has a "dating relationship." 

The leave may be taken for the purpose of participating in legal proceedings, to receive medical treatment and mental health counseling, or obtain support from social services programs. Family members can take leave to help the employee secure help or safety. 

What Must Employers do to Comply?

The law requires employers to provide unpaid job-protected leave, including intermittent leave.  As with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), upon return to work, the employee must be restored to his prior position or its equivalent.  Health insurance coverage must be maintained during the absence, as well.  The statute also contains an anti-retaliation provision.

There are also notice and verification laws very similar to those contained in the FMLA.  The employee must provide notice to the employer no later than the end of the first day of leave.  And employers may require timely verification in the form of a police report, court document, or a statement from a victim's support group, an attorney, clergy, or medical professional.  The statement may also come from the employee directly.  The law requires that the confidentiality of this information be preserved.

 

The Paid Family Leave Collaborative maintains a website with detailed coverage updating the movement for various types of paid and unpaid leave across the country.

Wellness programs have sprung up all over Corporate America.  Employer-sponsored, these programs are based on the idea that healthy employees are happy employees and happy employees are productive employees.  Although they continue to be popular with businesses, recent studies seem to indicate that they are not very successful in helping employees make long-term improvements to their overall health.  See my prior post, Are Today's Wellness Programs Running Out of Steam?

Wellness Programs Haven't Kicked the Bucket Yet

But just when it seems that perhaps the trend towards regulating employees' weight, cholesterol levels, and cardiovascular health, might be fading, here comes the public sector, bringing up the rear. 

Workforce.com reports that at least two states have moved towards mandatory wellness programs:

A California Assembly committee passed a bill this month that would require employers contracting with the state to offer one or more wellness programs to their employees. A bill introduced in Michigan would require that the state give preference to employers that offer wellness programs in awarding contracts.

California Assembly Bill 2360, introduced by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, in February, would apply to employers with 10 or more employees bidding on state contracts worth more than $1 million. Businesses could comply in a variety of ways, such as subsidizing memberships to fitness clubs, setting up their own fitness facilities, sponsoring amateur sports teams composed of employees, or providing employees with health information.

Levine’s bill was introduced after state legislators rejected a sweeping health care reform proposal by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that, among other things, would have provided incentives to plan members such as gym memberships; weight management programs; and reductions in health insurance premiums to promote prevention, wellness and healthy lifestyles.

A.B. 2360 has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it will be considered along with all other bills that could have a financial impact on the state, according to a spokesman for Assemblyman Levine.

Michigan’s wellness measure would require the state’s Department of Management and Budget to give preference to business entities that have wellness programs in place for their employees in awarding a contract for services and items needed by state agencies. The bill does not define wellness beyond "a health promotion program offered by an employer to his or her employees."

A report by the Senate Fiscal Agency for the state of Michigan found that the bill, which was introduced in February 2007 by state Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Lansing, would have no fiscal impact on state or local government. The bill has been referred to the Michigan Senate Committee on Health Policy.

Delaware's health-management program for public sector employees, DelaWELL, was recently awarded the National NASPE award.  I'll be curious to see whether mandatory healthiness (if there is such a thing) will be more effective than voluntary, reward-based wellness programs.

Workplace violence is a modern-day reality.  Conscientious employers take every precaution possible to prevent on-the-job injuries as well as to plan in advance for the unpreventable.  The new Georgia law, known as the "Parking Lot Law,"  makes it much more difficult to be a conscientious employer.

Exemptions for Property Owners

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed the "Business Security and Employee Privacy Act" on May 14. This Act expands the areas in which holders of firearm licenses may legally carry concealed weapons – and places some limitations on employers' rights.  Similar to the recently passed Florida law, the Act prohibits employers from banning concealed weapons on company property.  It also puts significant limits on an employer's right to search vehicles parked on site.

There is one major difference between the Parking Lot Law and the Florida law, the Preservation & Protection of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms in Motor Vehicle Act of 2008, which was signed into effect on April 14, 2008.  The Georgia law does not apply to employer that own the employee parking lot property.  It preserves the rights of the employer as a property owner, to restrict access by prohibiting concealed weapons.  The Florida law is broader and applies even to businesses that own the property. 

Apparently Not-So-Obvious Exceptions

Employers who do not own the property where employees are permitted to park is given some protection under the law. Some of the exceptions seem so fundamentally necessary that it's ironic to have them be specially carved out of the law. 

For example, one of the most significant is a discipline-based exception.  If an employee is subject to disciplinary action, employers may revoke his or her right to bring concealed weapons onto the property.  This certainly sounds like an important carve out. 

Yet, how effective can it really be?  You would expect that an employee who is already subject to discipline and then chooses to violate another policy by bringing a gun to work would be the person most likely to carry out an act of violence in the workplace.  At that point, what difference does a policy violation make?

Another, seemingly obvious exception is company-owned vehicles.  In other words, the employer may prohibit employees from carrying a concealed weapon while driving a company-owned vehicle.  Really, is it necessary to explicitly exempt vehicles owned by the employer? 

When Can an Employer Search the Vehicle?

The law does not permit employers to search employees' vehicles even if parked at the employer's place of business.  There is one very important exception to this prohibition. The prohibition on searches is lifted if there is reason to believe that the employer might prevent an immediate threat to the health, life, or safety of others. 

The Act also permits employers to search an employee's locked vehicle in the case of theft--sort of.   There are limits on this exception that make its application very limited.  First, the theft has to be detected by a private security officer.  Obviously, this means that most small businesses cannot utilize this exception.  Second, the employee must consent to the search.  Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?  If the employee consents, is the exception even needed at all? 

Employer Liability

The law includes limits on potential employer liability from injuries arising from weapons brought to work by employees.  Although the intention of the legislature is a valued one, it does not seem to reconcile with the purpose of banning guns at work. 

By prohibiting employees from carrying concealed weapons at work, employers don't just want to limit their legal exposure.  I feel confident saying that the purpose of such a policy is to prevent violence at work.  The safety of employees, customers, and other invited guests is the object of this type of policy.

Limiting liability on paper will not prevent the violence from occurring in the first place.  Nor will it effectively prevent employers from being named in a resulting lawsuit.  Despite the fact that they might not be on the hook for damages, they will inevitably be forced to incur the expense of litigation. 

With all due respect to the Georgia legislature, it seems that this bill takes several steps backwards in the necessary effort by employers to protect the safety of their workforce.

See also our prior post on the Florida "Guns at Work" bill, Florida Law Permits Guns at Work; Delaware Initiates an Anti-Workplace Violence Training Program

After being diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, long-time advocate of the American worker, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, will be released from the hospital today.  Kennedy was hospitalized Saturday morning after suffering a seizure at his family's compound at Hyannisport, Massachusetts.  Following the news of his sudden illness, politicians from both parties spoke highly of the Democratic Senator, including both democratic presidential candidates, Senators Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. As Washington regulars reflect on Kennedy's contributions during his more than 40 years in public service, U.S. employers may be interested in the initiatives that would have the greatest impact on the American workplace. 

Kennedy's Current Workforce Initiatives

 

Senator Kennedy is a major employee advocate and many of his initiatives are focused on this goal.  This passage from his senatorial website demonstrates Kennedy's perspective:

The minimum wage is at an all-time low, the Family and Medical Leave Act is under attack, and workers are being stripped of their overtime pay, unemployment insurance, and pensions. The United States must recommit itself to supporting working families to ensure a strong and prosperous America for future generations.

Specifically, Kennedy seeks to achieve these objectives through various proposals.  Here are five of Kennedy's proposals that would have the greatest impact on employers. 

1.   Union Rights

Senator Kennedy is a long-time union supporter.  On the agenda just this month was the Public Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which focuses on collective bargaining rights for public safety employees.  Currently, 26 states permit public employees to form bargaining unions.  The Cooperation Act would require the other 24 states to do the same. 

2.   Minimum Wage

Kennedy is one of the Senate's most vocal advocates for an increased federal minimum wage. This subject is a sensitive one for most U.S. employers.  If the national minimum wage did increase, it would likely trigger at least some changes in the way employers look at immigration reform, which is also on the Senator's list of proposals.

3.   Immigration Reform:  Illegal Immigrants

Another one of Senator Kennedy's major initiatives is targeting immigration.  Last year, immigration-reform legislation was passed but, according to Kennedy, fell short of achieving the goals it was intended to address. Kennedy has continued to advocate for revisions to the legislation, focusing on these main points:

1. Tougher Border Enforcement.  These changes would include border-enforcement patrols double the current size.  It would also target illegal immigrants currently in the U.S.  Employers who hire illegal workers would be subject to increased enforcement, as well.
2. Earned Legalization.  This initiative would target illegal aliens already in the U.S., giving them opportunities to earn citizenship.  This effort is based on the argument that massive deportation would be seriously disruptive to communities and business in the States.

4.  Immigration Reform:  The Future for Foreign Workers

Temporary-Worker Program.  As many employers are fully aware, getting specialty workers from other countries is a daunting task.  This third prong of Senator Kennedy's proposal is forward looking.  In the future,temporary employees from abroad would be given easier access to come to the U.S. for temporary work with the goal of working towards permanent employment and citizenship. 

5.  IDEA Reform

Another initiative on Kennedy's agenda has been increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).  The Senator's position is that, although the goals and purposes of the IDEA are on-track, the lack of federal funding has prevented it from being fully utilized by the states.

Information about these and other initiatives can be found on the Senator's official website.

Employers need to plan for the aging workforce—the "gray-haired demographic" is here to stay.

Aging Workforce News (AWN) talks about a newly introduced piece of legislation, the "Incentives for Older Workers Act." The proposed bill is designed to provide incentives and eliminate barriers for older Americans wishing to stay in the workforce longer, and encourage employers to recruit and retain older workers. AWN explains some of the bill's highlights:

Given the statistics on Baby Boomers in the workplace, this law could help employers deal with what Forbes.com calls the "Gray-Haired Workforce." By 2010, the number of workers aged 35 to 44--or those typically moving into upper management--will decline by 19%; the number of workers aged 45 to 54 will increase 21%; and the number of workers aged 55 to 64 will increase 52%. These statistic show that the workforce will include more and more employees aged 45 and over for several years to come. And they're not going anywhere—AARP reports that 79% of baby boomers say they have no plans to retire any time soon.

Genetic testing is a key advance in preventative health care. But opponents of DNA testing worry about privacy issues--that employers may use genetic data in making employment decisions. The Genetic Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (GINA) is intended to prevent that.

The Act was unanimously accepted by the Senate with a vote of 95-0. After final approval from the House, it will go to the President's desk for signature. It could be signed into law as early as next week. The act will protect individuals against discrimination based on their genetic information when it comes to health insurance and employment. These protections are intended to encourage Americans to take advantage of genetic testing as part of their medical care. The purpose of GINA is to ensure that anyone who gets genetic screening tests will be protected from having that information shared with health insurers or employers. Up until now, individuals who tested positive for a certain type of cancer gene could be denied insurance coverage or employment based on his or predisposition to developing cancer years down the road.

“It means that people whose genetic profiles put them at risk of cancer and other serious conditions can get tested and seek treatment without fear of losing their privacy, their jobs, and their health insurance,”

said Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.).

The debate is not a new one--the bill was rejected more than 10 times before it passed. And during those 10+ years, Delaware passed its own genetic antidiscrimination law. Delaware is one of 35 states to prohibit genetic discrimination in employment. State laws typically protect "genetic information." A number of states, including Delaware, have passed or are considering bills that expressly include and requests for genetic services. The Delaware law also makes it unlawful for an employer to "intentionally collect" genetic information unless it can be demonstrated that the information is job-related and consistent with business necessity or is sought in connection with a bona fide employee welfare or benefit plan.

Of the 35 states with these laws, though, there has not been a single suit filed on the grounds of "genetic descrimination," although the EEOC did settle a genetic-discrimination claim that was filed under the Americans With Disabilities Act. In that case, the employer, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, was alleged to have obtained blood samples from employees that would later be used for genetic testing, unbeknownst to the employees. The employer ceased the conduct within days of receiving the EEOC's complaint and eventually settled the suit.

Additional Resources:
The National Conference of State Legislatures maintains a comprehensive website on laws dealing with genetics and genetic testing if you're interested in where your state currently stands.

But the most detailed resource, by far is that of the National Human Genome Research Institute, (NHGRI) at genome.gov. The NHGRI's site inlcudes dozens of helpful explanations about just about everything genetic--including the legal, social, and ethical implications of genetic testing.

To review GINA's passage through the House and Senate, visit thomas.loc.gov.

From a women's health perspective, U.S. News & World Report's Deborah Kotz's article is a worthy read.

And, as always, our friends at HR Hero has a whole cache of easy-to-read and to-the-point articles on the Genetic Testing page of their website.