Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls
"Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls" is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed issues of gender discrimination and the treatment of pregnant employees within the workplace. The case centered around Johnson Controls' policy that excluded women from jobs involving lead exposure if they were capable of becoming pregnant, arguing it was a measure to protect future children. However, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority that the policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1983, which mandates that pregnant employees must be treated equally to other employees unless there is a legitimate occupational qualification for different treatment.
Justice Harry A. Blackmun's majority opinion highlighted that this exclusion did not equally protect all employees, as it did not apply to male employees who could also be affected by lead exposure. The Court emphasized that decisions regarding child welfare should be left to the parents and not dictated by employer policies. Furthermore, the ruling pointed out that existing safety standards already aimed to protect unborn children, and the company’s concerns over tort liability were deemed insufficient justification for the discriminatory policy. This case is significant in the ongoing discourse around workplace equality and reproductive rights.
Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls
Date: March 20, 1991
Citation: 499 U.S. 187
Issue: Gender issues
Significance: Based on an interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1983, the Supreme Court struck down a private company’s fetal-protection policy that barred all women with childbearing capacity from jobs involving significant lead exposure.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1983, an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, required that pregnant employees must be “treated the same” as other employees unless there was a bona fide occupational qualification for different treatment. By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court held that there was no bona fide occupational qualification justification for Johnson Controls’ policy of exclusion. Justice Harry A. Blackmun’s majority opinion emphasized that the policy did not seek to protect the future children of all employees equally because it did not apply to male employees despite evidence of the debilitating effect of lead exposure on the male reproductive system. In addition, he wrote that the 1983 act permitted a safety exception only in instances in which the employee’s sex or pregnancy actually interfered with the worker’s ability to perform the job and that decisions about the welfare of future children must be left to parents rather than the employer. Rejecting the argument about the need of the company to protect itself from tort liability, Blackmun noted that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration required safety standards designed to minimize the risk to an unborn child and that it would be difficult for a court to find liability without negligence.
