Manufacturer Asked Job Applicants Whether Their Parents, Siblings, and Grandparents Had Cancer or Diabetes — The EEOC Called That Illegal

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Job hunting already comes with enough awkward questions. But at a Kentucky automotive parts plant, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says applicants were asked to hand over something way more personal than a resume: their family’s medical history.

In a lawsuit announced June 25, 2026, the EEOC accused Dana Sealing Manufacturing, LLC of illegally collecting “genetic information” during pre-employment physicals at its Danville facility. The agency laid out its allegations in the original post, describing a hiring process that went past standard health screening and into questions about parents, siblings, and grandparents.

It wasn’t just a physical — it was family history on paper

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Dana Sealing required job applicants, as part of its pre-employment physical examination process, to say whether close relatives had ever had certain medical conditions.

The list wasn’t minor. The EEOC said applicants were asked about family history involving conditions including cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, epilepsy, asthma, or mental illness.

And the questions weren’t limited to one relative. The agency alleged the company asked about mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and grandparents. In other words, it wasn’t “Do you have any restrictions?” It was “Does disease run in your family?”

The EEOC says the law draws a hard line here

The lawsuit is built around the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or GINA. The EEOC described GINA as making it unlawful for employers to request, require, or purchase genetic information about an employee or applicant.

And GINA’s definition is broader than a DNA test. The press release notes that “genetic information” includes information about diseases or disorders that show up in family members. So asking about whether a parent or grandparent had cancer or diabetes isn’t just “medical background” in the everyday sense—under this law, it can be treated as protected genetic information.

The EEOC’s regional attorney for the Indianapolis District, Kenneth L. Bird, said in a statement that GINA prevents employers from requesting family medical history from employees and applicants except in narrow circumstances, and that those exceptions didn’t apply here. He added that the agency will continue enforcing GINA and other federal anti-discrimination laws.

The timeline suggests it was routine, not a one-off mistake

The dates in the EEOC’s allegations matter because they paint a picture of a practice baked into the hiring process. The agency says this went on from at least January 2022 until October 2024.

That’s nearly three years of pre-employment exams where applicants were allegedly required to answer the same kind of family medical history questions. It’s the difference between “someone grabbed the wrong form once” and “this is the form we use.”

The company is described as a manufacturer of automotive parts, and the alleged conduct took place at its Danville, Kentucky facility. Beyond that, the press release doesn’t get into how the information was stored, who had access to it, or whether it was used to screen people out. The EEOC’s case, at least as presented here, focuses on the collection itself.

How it escalated from paperwork to a federal lawsuit

EEOC lawsuits usually come after a process behind the scenes, and this one followed that path. The agency said it filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky after trying to resolve the matter through its administrative conciliation process.

Conciliation is essentially the EEOC’s effort to reach a settlement before going to court—negotiations aimed at getting a company to change practices and provide relief without litigation. Here, it didn’t end there.

The case is titled EEOC v. Dana Sealing Manufacturing, LLC (Case No. 5:26-cv-00233-REW-EBA). The press release doesn’t specify what remedies the EEOC is seeking, but the filing signals the agency believes the alleged practice was serious enough, and unresolved enough, to put it in front of a judge.

What people tend to focus on when hiring questions get this personal

When a hiring process asks for medical details, the first reaction many people have is practical: “Do I have to answer this to get the job?” That pressure is part of what makes pre-employment forms such a flashpoint. Applicants often don’t feel like they’re in a position to push back, especially in a physical exam setting where paperwork can feel like a checkbox on the way to a paycheck.

The second reaction is usually about documentation. If a form is asking about family diseases, people tend to want to keep a copy, take a photo, or write down exactly what was asked and when—because once the moment passes, it can turn into a “he said, she said” dispute about what the company required.

And then there’s the bigger fear behind the question: not just privacy, but what an employer might do with the information. Even if a company claims it’s only collecting it for “health reasons,” the law is designed to prevent employers from building hiring decisions around inherited risk—who might be more likely to get sick later, need leave, or cost more on insurance. The EEOC’s lawsuit is essentially saying: you don’t get to ask in the first place.

A hiring shortcut can turn into a long, expensive fight

The EEOC’s press release reads like a warning shot to employers who still use outdated medical questionnaires. A pre-employment physical can sound routine, but the moment it drifts into family history, it can trigger federal protections that many applicants don’t even realize exist.

For Dana Sealing, the next chapter plays out in federal court in Kentucky. For everyone else watching, it’s a reminder that a “standard form” isn’t automatically a legal one—and that the questions asked at the very start of a job can be enough to bring in the EEOC.