About 1997, we had an insurance agent visit our house as part of a policy assessment.

The agent wanted a swab of my internal cheek.

Having graduated with a molecular biology and genetics degree, I asked why.

I didn’t give a sample.

But I did write about in the Globe and Mail, which garnered a lot of negative response.

BS.

Who was the “devious defecator” leaving their “offending fecal matter” across an Atlanta-area warehouse that stored and delivered products for grocery stores?

That’s how US District Judge Amy Totenberg described the issue as she ruled in favor of two employees who were forced to give a buccal cheek swab to determine if their DNA was a match. But a match was not to be had. The two sued, claiming that the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibited their 2012 tests by a forensics lab hired by their employer, Atlas Logistics Group Retail Services.

Employees Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds are expected to go to trial against their employer on June 17 in what could be the first damages trial resulting from the 2008 civil rights legislation, which generally bars employers from using individuals’ genetic information when making hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions. The Office of Management and Budget has said the “potential misuse of this information raises moral and legal issues.”

Ahead of trial, Judge Totenberg set aside Atlas Logistics’ claims that the “genetic information” at issue wasn’t covered by the law. Atlas Logistics asserted that GINA excludes analyses of DNA, RNA, chromosomes, proteins, or metabolites if such analyses do not reveal an individual’s propensity for disease. The judge ruled that the “plain meaning of the statute’s text” is satisfactory for the case to go forward despite the tests at issue not revealing disease propensities.