Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls

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 mistake, because it "is more lenient for the employer" than the test required by Title VII. In an earlier decision, Wards Cove Packing v. Atonio (1989), the Supreme Court had ruled that the employee, and not the employer, bore the burden of proving a discriminatory policy was not a "business necessity." However, this "burden" was applicable only in cases where discrimination was a consequence of a neutral policy--never in cases of explicitly gender-based sex discrimination. To make his point clear, Blackmun quoted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): "For the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof in a case in which there is direct evidence of a facially discriminatory policy is wholly inconsistent with settled Title VII law . . . bona fide occupational qualification is the better approach."