Burlington Northern Railway history and operations

Burlington Northern Railway - Is Settlement Fair?

In any case decided by the court or in any settlement, it is not enough for two parties or more to come to an agreement. They must come to an agreement that is right by way of the law, but also right ethically and morally. In the case of Burlington Railway, a case was settled regarding gene-testing among employees that worked for the Railway. The company, Burlington Northern Santa e Railway Co. agreed to halt any further litigation against the employee in question. The case settlement also resulted in a new policy created by Burlington Railway stating the Company, will no longer conduct genetic testing to discern whether employees had genetic defects or any other problems that may preclude a candidate from working with the organization.

In this case, the company had tested incumbents to determine whether they had genetic defects before hiring them to work at the facility. They had also tested employees during a pre-screen physical for genetic defects prior to this instance without informing employees of their decision to do this. Clearly this is a case of discrimination as Schafer (2001) notes, as defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). On first review one might automatically assume that it is morally and ethically wrong to exclude individuals with disabilities of any kind from working with the company. However, the company in this case began starting genetic testing because the company had experienced circumstances where employees filed for "work-related injuries based on carpal tunnel syndrome." The company's logic behind testing was that employees with previous defects or injuries that become exacerbated at their new place of employment should not be the responsibility of the employer or potential employer.

There are certain instances where an employer may exclude certain individuals from working in a position. For example, the EEOC does grant "exceptions" to the ADA and other federal legislation if a job requires that a person has "specific characteristics" which may include their "gender, religion, national origin, age" and other protected characteristics, or if the job qualifies for "Bona fide occupational qualification" or BFOQ (Nolo, 2004). An example of this may be the need to hire a female for a bathroom attendant position, or a male for a part in a movie involving a male as the lead character (Nolo, 2004). These exclusions however, are not morally and ethically wrong by general consensus. Most people would agree that such exclusions are valid and do not violate ethical or moral principles. Most women for example, would prefer a female attendant sitting in the bathroom handing out wash cloths than a male attendant.

The decisions made by Burlington Railway however, do not qualify as BFOQ, and do not fit other standards that allow exceptions to EEOC. Opponents however, may suggest it is a violation of the employer's right to fire an employee or fail to pay workmen's compensation claims for an employee that was injured on a previous job, when the injury carried over to the new employer. There is still much debate on the issue of genetic testing in the workplace (Schafer, 2001). It is safe to say however, that there is much more support for not testing than there is for testing. While the company may have some rights related to hiring and firing, a case like this must be considered at times individually. For example, if the employee in question had carpal tunnel before, and it was treated, and the employee was fully recovered, there is no reason for Burlington to test the employee for carpal tunnel disorder. If the person is recovered and develops a new injury, it qualifies for protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

An ethical decision is one that is common or generally accepted by the majority to be right or wrong. An ethical and moral decision is one that most people would agree on, if not all. If the employee in this case had attempted to fraudulently apply for the position or claimed an injury that did not exist or one that was not fully recovered nor the fault of the position taken or the company worked for, there is a greater likelihood that the settlement or a court-decided case would favor the company. However, this does not suggest that the company has a right to genetic testing. Genetic testing is controversial in part because it goes beyond what many consider to be "common standards" that are acceptable and utilized frequently, testing in other words that does not violate the ADA.