The question of whether or not something constitutes discrimination depends entirely on the perspective of the evaluator. For example, if you believe a pre-employment physical exam constitutes discrimination because it's nobody's business what health problems an employee might have. On the other hand, if an employee is hired and continually files insurance claims due to general poor health, insurance premiums increase for all employees. This issue is complex and really depends on the business owner's right to make business decisions and the individual employee's right to maintain some employee privacy. In this article I will examine the case brought against Burlington Northern and the Santa Fe Railway Company. I will also review the decision and resolution reached in the case. I will then use utilitarian and deontological considerations to determine whether this decision was right or whether the railroad's rights to protect its business were violated. According to an article from Business Insurance, in just under a year Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) has had approximately 125 claims filed by employees for carpal tunnel injuries. Roberto Ceniceros (2001, February). Genetic screening risks 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 performed genetic testing on thirty of these employees. The same Business Insurance article stated that BNSF wanted to determine whether job duties were the sole cause of the injuries or whether claimants were predisposed to carpal tunnel problems before engaging in those duties. The company stated that they were not trying to reduce their claims costs. Later in that article it states that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claims that basing employment decisions on genetic testing violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. The law, the EEOC says, prohibits employers workplace to seek disability information unrelated to an employee's ability to perform their job. The agency said in its February 9, 2001 statement that employers may require an employee to undergo a medical exam only if it is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Any test that claims to predict future disabilities is unlikely to be relevant to an employee's current ability to perform a job. This case attempts to establish precedence for the future as this type of genetic testing is new and underused.