Present and defend your view as to whether in the following case the actions of Ms.Edgerton and her supervisor were morally permissible according to Utilitarianism and Kantism?

Virginia Edgerton was senior information scientist on a project for New York City's Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The project was to develop a computer system for use by New York district attorneys in keeping track of data about court cases. It was to be added to another computer system, already in operation, which dispatched police cars in response to emergency calls. Ms. Edgerton, who had 13 years of data processing experience, judged that adding on the new system might result in overloading the existing system in such a way that the response time for dispatching emergency vehicles might increase. Because it might risk lives to test the system in operation, she recommended that a study be conducted ahead of time to estimate the likelihood of such overload. She made this recommendation to her immediate supervisor, the project director, who refused to follow it. She then sought advice from the IEEE, of which she was a member. The Institute's Working Group on Ethics and Employment Practices referred her to the manager of systems programming at Columbia University's computer center, who verified that she was raising a legitimate issue. Next, she wrote a formal memo to her supervisor, again requesting the study. When her request was rejected, she sent a revised version of the memo to New York's Criminal Justice Steering Committee, a part of the organization for which she worked. In doing so she violated the project director's orders that all communications to the Steering Committee be approved by him in advance. The project director promptly fired her for insubordination. Later he stated: It is ... imperative that an employee who is in a highly professional capacity, and has the exposure that accompanies a position dealing with top-level policymakers, follow expressly given orders and adhere to established policy