Sneaking a Peek, Sometime Cost You: Genetic Testing a Price to Pay

Sneaking a Peek, Sometime Cost You: Genetic Testing a Price to Pay When signing the dotted line, we give away a lot. The words printed, the ink dries and we have committed to a legal contract that specific roles will be assumed and expectation do follow. The contract starts a line of trust that we often do not acknowledge until this trust is broken or affirmed. In the case study regarding Danville Airlines, Human Resource Director Julie Taylor and Pilot David Reiger a trust test was given, result were discovered, and now decision will have to be made because sneaking a peek into the lives of others sometime will cost you. What the cost? Only with time they will know as we discuss what laws, feelings and interpretation affect the rights and trust between employer and employee. The study title Danville Airlines presented the scenario of a 42 year old pilot, David Reiger, whom father recently passed away from Huntington Diseases (Mead & Wicks, 2004). The disease is heredity and children of parent with the disease have 50% chance of inheriting the gene (Semaka, Balneaves, & Hayden, 2013). Reiger found out he had the gene after undergoing a required screening by Danville Airlines and Danville Airline secretly, without consent, tested for it. Now armed with this new information, Julie Taylor, the Human Resource Director have to make decision on her recommendation to the board of director of the airlines. A decision of whether to keep, Reiger, let him go, or in some hybrid of the two extremes (Mead & Wicks, 2004). But before we discuss, what Taylor decision should recommend, let’s look at some of the benefits and drawbacks of genetic screenings. Since liability is a major responsivity of companies that service the public, they have had to develop a way to protect themselves if they planned to survive. And since employees are a part of the company whose impact is immediately felt short term and long term, it imperative that the company know as much about who this employee is. Therefore, they test and screen, some requiring bodily fluids. Such results of the screening provide needed information so informed decisions can be made. These benefits such as providing a way to protect themselves from potential harm. Preempting frivolous hiring of employees who may or may not have the capacity to maintain the job they have or to see if they qualify for a job they are trying to assume. Preventing the loss of revenue due to absenteeism, increase in health coverage. Also providing reluctant employees information about their health like in Reiger’s case Reiger was also able to benefit from the knowledge that he have the gene. He can prepare himself and his family for what to come as he is familiar with the disease. He will also be able to get a better understanding of his worth to the company based on if they keep him or not. He will be able to prepare for legal ramification regarding the treatment he receives from his company after they violated his trust in gathering this data. Drawbacks from genetic resting, besides the lack of policy to address situation fully, are for a company. It’s possible loss of revenue from potential innovators especially if hired by a competitor. Many discoveries are made by people whom lives are not lived to the fullest due to illness or other unforeseen tragedies. The fear of not hiring an individual based on known traits alone can result in such loss. Forcing people to look at themselves can result undue stress due to the genetics could provide unwanted information or too much information. This stress can result in a loss in revenue. Another drawback could be the loss of privacy if health information is loss or spread throughout the office through gossip Reiger’s drawbacks will probably be knowing that he have the gene can cause undue stress and worry as he may have to relive the experience since the loss of his father. His requirement to addresses the feelings of his family regarding the new information. These benefits and drawbacks are a few that both the company and Reiger face with the implantation of genetic testing.
Trust, Rights, Legal or Illegal
The right to do something often is not the best thing to do. Danville technically had the right to test Reiger and any employee under their contract. They can reserve that right to test because they have a responsibility to the board, and public they serve. Reiger is an employee and has by default given them the permission to treat him like property. Expensive, extremely valuable, and living property but still property. And they want to ensure that their property is still able to perform its job. So if there is something broken with your property, you have to fix it. And some time it requires things to be replaced. Their legality of the collection of data is in the air, but now that they have obtained it they will have to deal with it. Because I still feel Danville Airlines had the right to know. However, they would need to get everyone tested as a way to equalize this incident while they develop policy regarding testing and procedures. Allow for consent, test all employees, and then follow the developed protocol. They should use this illegal mishap as a way to protect all involved in the company while preparing for any ramification of this discriminatory incident.
Reiger’s trust in the airlines should be broken and he have a legal right to sue to appeal a negative decision based on their acquisition of the data. If Reiger’s attorney inform him that lawsuit was too ambiguous and expensive because the laws of The 1974 Privacy Act-this law does not protect him from discrimination as genetic testing was not a viable possibility. His situation does not apply (Mead & Wicks, 2004). The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA) would not prevent his loss of employment as it did not cover employment discrimination. It would cover any other develop illness (Mead & Wicks, 2004). And under The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, he was technically covered by the ADA, but his employment is highly skilled and would potential cause undue hardship on the employer as his inability to preform hi job could potentially harm others. So ADA is on the side of his employer (Mead & Wicks, 2004). I would recommend that we would settle the lawsuit, pay what damages occurred and follow up with the policy to address this issue so to prove that we still value Reiger and want the trust in the company to remain. However, I would include a clause for treatment of employees before the policy. The policy would be treated as “Old hire” and a “New Hire plan”. Each would be informed of the difference and the new requirements. If any genetic revelation provided evidence of potential harm to the company, the protocol would be to choose what was in the best interest of the company, without causing undue hardship to the employee, while following the current federal guidelines for addressing any anti-discriminatory laws.
Recommendation
Reiger has suffered a major loss, but a decisions would have to be made based on the information gathered. Would his experience affect my decisions I say no. Because his personal experience does not decide the general policy; however, his experience does provides growth for the company. It provided a way to protect the company and all involved from losses. I would support him and any employee through their time of need, show empathy, but the decision would be based on the policy and if it does not exist we would need to address this also.
So as Taylor should recommend that the company address the acquisition of Reiger’s genetics and use of them as they were illegal. She should then recommend a new policy addressing genetic testing, it uses, and the procedures for addressing negative findings. There also should a clause to address pre-policy employees or “Old Hires” as they would be titled and after policy hires or “New Hires” and the treatment of each. Reiger’s would be allow to perform his job until his disease onset or until he feels that it is not in his best interest which ever has the greatest impact on the public being served. If his disease affect’s his ability to fly, another job should be offered that is equal or equivalent to his title at the time of his onset and if one could not be found. He would be allotted his retirement if applicable, or assistance with other retraining programs for skills that will allow him to function in his current capacity.

Reference
Semaka, A., Balneaves, L. G., & Hayden, M. R. (2013). “Grasping the Grey”: Patient understanding and interpretation of an intermediate allele predictive test result for Huntington disease. Journal Of Genetic Counseling, 22(2), 200-217.
Mead, J., Wicks, A. C. (2004). Danville Airlines. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Darden School Foundation, UV0024.