Whether or not something constitutes discrimination depends entirely on the perspective of the evaluators. For example, if you think a pre-employment medical exam constitutes discrimination because it's no one's business what health issues an employee may have. On the other hand, if an employee is hired and continually files claims due to poor general health, insurance premiums increase for all employees. This issue is complex and really boils down to the right of the business owner to make business decisions and the right of each employee to maintain some level of confidentiality. In this article I will examine the complaint filed against the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company. I will also review the decision and settlement that was reached in this case. Next, I will use utilitarian and ethical considerations to determine whether this decision was right or whether the railroad's rights to protect its business were violated. According to a Business Insurance article published just under a year ago, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company ( BNSF) has seen approximately 125 claims filed by employees for carpal tunnel injuries. Roberto Ceniceros (February 2001). Genetic testing is the subject of lawsuits. Business Insurance, 35(8), 1.42. Retrieved May 14, 2008 from the ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 68833673). Of these 125 claims, BNSF admits to having conducted genetic testing on thirty of these employees. The same Business Insurance article stated that BNSF wanted to determine whether work-related tasks were the sole cause of the injuries or whether the plaintiffs were predisposed to carpal tunnel issues before undertaking these tasks, the company said it did not was not trying to reduce its claims costs. Later in this article, it is stated that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asserts that basing employment decisions on genetic testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the EEOC, the law prohibits employers from seeking disability information unrelated to an employee's ability to do their job. The agency said in its February 9, 2001 statement that employers may require an employee to submit to a medical examination only if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Any test purporting to predict future disabilities is unlikely to be relevant to an employee's current ability to perform a job. This case attempts to set a precedent for the future because this type of genetic test is new and little used..