Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - Significance, Women And Children First, Defining "business Necessity", "outright And Explicit" Discrimination

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - Further Readings

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - Significance

This decision gave women the opportunity to make their own reasoned decisions about pregnancy and dangerous work. Johnson Controls, Inc. manufactures batteries--a process that utilizes lead as a primary ingredient. Men's and women's exposure to lead may have a negative impact on health, including birth defects in children. Some studies have suggested lead exposure may affect fertility in both men …

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - Women And Children First

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - Defining "business Necessity"

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit asked three questions about fetal protection policies to determine whether they were business necessities. The questions covered whether there was a substantial health risk to the fetus, if that hazard to the fetus was transferred only through women, and whether there was "a less discriminatory alternative equally capable of preventing the health hazard…

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - "outright And Explicit" Discrimination

The opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered by Justice Blackmun, found Johnson Controls had discriminated against women: "The bias in Johnson Controls' policy is obvious. Fertile men, but not fertile women, are given a choice as to whether they wish to risk their reproductive health for a particular job." The Court also held that the appeals court's application of the business necessity test was a…

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - The Bfoq Considered

Title VII permitted an employer to discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin" only when a genuine BFOQ existed that was "reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise." Johnson Controls argued that its safety concerns were "reasonably related" and that its fetal protection policy discriminated on the basis of a BFOQ of female sterility…

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - None Of Your Business

Recalling Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977), Blackmun wrote, "danger to a woman herself does not justify discrimination." Similarly, the risks a pregnant woman assumed on behalf of her fetus were not her employer's concern. On this point, Blackmun cited a number of lower court cases that upheld the layoffs of pregnant flight attendants "at different points during the first five months of pregnancy . . .…

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - It Is Up To The Women

A question still remained for Johnson Controls about the company's liability if fertile women were not excluded from hazardous work. Blackmun conceded that more than 40 states permitted lawsuits to recover for prenatal injuries. However, the right to recover in the cases was uniformly based on negligence or on wrongful death. Johnson Controls had the power, to "comply with the lead standard develo…

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls - Fetal Protection Policies