SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
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.
The two plaintiffs were singled out [for testing] because their work schedules coincided with the timing and location of what the court termed the "defecation episodes."
The company has offered a combined $200,000 to the two employees without admitting wrongdoing. The two employees have vowed to push for more.
takyon: Judge Amy Totenberg is the sister of NPR correspondent Nina Totenberg. The Washington Post has more details about the case and GINA.
original submission
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Saturday June 06 2015, @02:03PM
They likely can't compel people to give DNA for such a thing either. It's not like they are running around knifing people..and the only 'evidence' is "Well, they were working around that time.."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @02:16PM
You bitch about there "not being evidence", when collecting these samples was done to try to find a concrete link between the defecate and the defecator.
The overlap between the shift scheduling and the appearance of the defecate is enough to raise suspicion.
But it is obviously not enough to pinpoint the perpetrator.
That is why further investigation was necessary.
If you want evidence presented, then you need to allow the evidence to be collected.
Don't come to us crying about there not being evidence, especially when it is you who is preventing that evidence from being discovered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @02:18PM
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Sunday June 07 2015, @03:19AM
In the (words/voices) of Beavis & Butthead:
Heh... Heh, heh heh, he said "cheek".
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @02:41PM
Never heard of "The ends don't justify the means."?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @03:16PM
Are you from India, where it's socially acceptable to shit wherever you please, even if it's on food and in drinking water?
That's the only reason I could think of for somebody not willing to go to any length to find who committed a fecal crime.
Anyone living in a civilized society would fully support tracking down and punishing those who use feces as a weapon.
(Score: 2, Informative) by bitrotRnotbitrot on Saturday June 06 2015, @03:25PM
Maybe installing cameras would be a better approach than taking everybodies DNA that may have been in the vicinity of said unnecessarily weaponized fecal matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @03:30PM
A person's appearance is part of their genetics. Using video footage to identify the perpetrator is no different than using DNA testing to identify the perpetrator. If you consider using DNA testing to be wrong, then you automatically consider using video footage to be wrong, too.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @03:46PM
Because there's no problem at all with handing your DNA to people who will sequence it and stick it in a database somewhere.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Saturday June 06 2015, @08:50PM
By that logic it's wrong to be an eyewitness. A video camera most certainly is an acceptable way to watch for crime. It is also an acceptable way to watch the police. Is anyone really surprised that the police are abusing their authority? That when citizens began capturing video of police, it would reveal considerable excess?
Authorities are so willing and ready to trample upon civilized limits. A little bit of grotesqueness, and just like that they burn with such zeal to find the perp that they forget themselves and don't care how they do it. Should've taken some deep breaths and calmed down before sinking to a greater level of grotesqueness by demanding anal samples. We have to watch them constantly, and push back hard when they cross the line. Hope they end up paying huge fines. We haven't been doing near enough of that in recent times, been letting the powerful get away with far too much.
Cops exhibit similar zeal when it comes to hot pursuit. They go crazy trying to bring the fleeing prey down, when reflection by cooler heads would show there is no need. A fleeing person can't evade surveillance so easily, can't move faster than radio waves, and if in a car will eventually run out of gas. Police departments are beginning to understand that high speed chases are dangerous and unnecessary. All they need do is keep an eye on the fleeing person, and wait. Be ready to move in more forcefully if the fleeing person gets desperate enough to try to hurt innocent bystanders, but don't press otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2015, @03:04AM
> Using video footage to identify the perpetrator is no different than using DNA testing to identify the perpetrator.
Lemme guess, you also think that moderation is censorship, amiright?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2015, @08:45PM
We could just shoot everyone. Then there would be no one to commit these heinous crimes!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday June 08 2015, @12:11AM
There are legal ethical, and practical limits to evidence collection though. That applies to both cops and private citizens.
Besides, they appear to have missed a few obvious things like it probably happened some time before it was discovered, so they may have been looking at the wrong shift. Also, if their management is worth the oxygen it consumes, they should have some idea (perhaps even a raging clue) who there is both that crass and that disgruntled.