less than 1 minute read

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

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1989 to 1994

Petitioners

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, et al.

Respondent

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Petitioners' Claim

That Johnson Controls' "fetal protection policy" is sex discrimination prohibited by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).

Chief Lawyer for Petitioners

Marsha S. Berzon

Chief Lawyer for Respondent

Stanley S. Jaspan

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun (writing for the Court), Anthony M. Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

20 March 1991

Decision

Johnson Controls' fetal protection policy was in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the PDA.

Related Cases

  • Ward's Cove Packing v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).
  • Radovanic v. Centex Real Estate Corporation, 767 F.Supp. 1322 (W.D.N.C. 1991).
  • Krauel v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center, 95 F.3d 674 (1996).

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.

Additional topics