The Burlington case concerning genetic testing could have accomplished this but failed because although it was settled out of court for 2.2 million dollars, "Burlington admitted no wrongdoing and there has been no determination that what it did was illegal," (Duke 1)
This is not ultimately because workplace diversity contributes to efficiency or productivity -- though it may -- it is out of consideration for the social implications of employment. Essentially, "To manage diversity effectively, a corporation must value diversity; it must have diversity, and it must change the organization to accommodate diversity and make it an integral part of the organization," (Gilbert 1)
In genetic monitoring, workers are tested for genetic damage caused e.g. By exposure to chemicals in the workplace," (Persson 2)
A June survey by Forrester Research and Proofpoint found that 32% of employers fired workers over the previous twelve months for violating e-mail policies by sending content that posed legal, financial, and regulatory or p.r. risks" (Dell & Cullen, 2006)
However, this decision backfired when not only did the stress of employees increase but agents cut off customers before all their questions were answered in order to meet the time quota (Bernstein, 1991). Thus, it is important to recognize the trade-offs between productivity goals and those of rule compliance" (Crampton & Mishra, 1998)
A balancing of interests allows the employer to initiate investigations and to conduct searches of employee effects upon the premises of the employer. The court made clear that the Fourth Amendment protection was a prohibition on unreasonable searches, but an employer could define the conditions to allow most searches to be reasonable" (Cozzetto & Pedeliski, 1997)
The court indicated that employers may regulate a worker's conduct on the job, but 'the same interest does not always exist in regulating the employee's off-duty conduct.' While the court ruled in the worker's favor, the language was vague and does not preclude the possibility that this policy might be valid under different circumstances" (Losey, 1994)