Danville Airlines Discuss the issue of genetic testing and screening. What are the benefits and the drawbacks of genetic testing? Specifically, what were they for Reiger?

The benefits of genetic testing are pretty obvious. Genetic testing allows potential employers and other individuals receive a clear and proper snapshot about the genetic fingerprint of the people they're dealing with. This is particularly important because certain jobs are susceptible to certain forms of intense stress and nearly every profession requires that employees and other individuals be able to engage in specific tasks related to the proper administration of the job. If an individual is genetically susceptible to a certain condition that can jeopardize his ability to do a job correctly or even safely, then a prospective employee has a clear and present right to know that -- some might argue. For example, if a prospective employee were genetically susceptible to gradual blindness, an employer might want to know that if the employee were seeking a job as a bus-driver at the time. Thus, an inherent benefit of genetic testing is that it is able to provide the most relevant information that an individual might otherwise not know.

In the case of Danville Airlines, the potential drawbacks are profound: discrimination is at the forefront of this issue. If genetic testing becomes a standard method of screening employees for potential employment, the drawbacks and the related impacts of this method could extend, adversely affecting them from getting a mortgage, from receiving health insurance and impacting them in a negative fashion from any institution which has power over them. The drawbacks of genetic testing specifically for Reiger are clear and obvious, even though he's passed the physical requirements necessary for the job, if genetic testing were used to determine...

Genetic testing would have a strong and overly negative impact on his professional life and aspirations. Reiger would have no choice but to seek out a new means of employment.
2. Assume it is technically legal for Danville to test Reiger without his consent. Did Danville have a right to do so? Why or why not?

In this case, Danville did not have a right to do so, because nothing about Reiger's current or pass performance indicated that he was a high risk employee, or that passengers or equipment were in danger. As stated earlier, Reiger passed the physical examination and nothing in his past behavior or actions demonstrated that there might be a problem with him or that he possessed a mental deficiency that would prevent him from continuing to be a capable pilot.

3. Assume it was illegal. How does that change your answer?

That doesn't change my answer, it merely reinforces the fact that nothing that Reiger did or said indicated that he might pose a risk or threat to others. There was absolutely no legal basis for testing him.

4. Now, assume that Danville's attorneys say the law is ambiguous, and that fighting a lawsuit would be expensive. How does that change your answer?

The law is not terribly ambiguous: essentially, potential employers aren't allowed to discriminate against employees on the basis of mental and physical handicaps or disabilities. As the case describes, "Under the ADA, disabled employees could not be dismissed from a job if they performed 'with reasonable accommodation.' For example, an employee whose job was answering the phone and who was hard of hearing could not be dismissed. Under the law, an employer must accommodate that employee by providing, for example,…