Book Opener

UNITLandmark CaseAutomobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.United States Supreme Court499 U.S. 187 (1991)Issue Can an employer exclude a female employee from certain employmentpositions to protect the health of a fetus if the woman should becomepregnant?Factsacts Johnson Controls, Inc. manufactures batteriescontaining lead. Concerned about the safetyof its employees, Johnson Controls adopted safetymeasures directed at its female workers. Becauseexposure to lead can pose serious health risks to afetus, Johnson Controls encouraged women whoexpected to give birth to choose positions that wouldnot expose them to lead. The company requiredany woman who wished to work in such a positionto sign a statement advising her “that womenexposed to lead have a higher rate of abortion.”After eight female employees with high levels oflead became pregnant, Johnson Controls excludednearly all women from positions that exposed themto lead.. . . [I]t is [Johnson Controls’] policy thatwomen who are pregnant or who are capable ofbearing children will not be placed into jobsinvolving lead exposure or which could exposethem to lead through the exercise of job bidding,bumping, transfer, or promotion rights.”Several female employees filed a class actionsuit against Johnson Controls, alleging that thecompany’s “fetal protection policy” constitutedunlawful discrimination on the basis of gender.Opinion Congress has adopted legislationprohibiting discriminatory practices in employmentbased on gender. The Civil Rights Act of1964, as amended, prohibits gender-based classificationsas a term or condition of employmentand prohibits such classifications in other mattersaffecting an employee’s status in a company. TheCivil Rights Act was amended by the PregnancyDiscrimination Act of 1978, which provides thatgender discrimination includes discrimination“because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth,or related medical conditions.”Is the Policy Discriminatory?The Court determined that Johnson Controls’fetal protection policy is discriminatory becauseit excludes only women with the ability to becomepregnant from certain positions. Although evidenceexists about the adverse effects of lead onthe male reproductive system, Johnson Controls’policy excludes only females from the designatedpositions. An employer’s good intentions for suchdiscrimination do not cure the discriminatorypractice.478 Unit 4: Being an Agent and Getting a Job