Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls 1991
| Author | Daniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw |
| Pages | 647-653 |
Page 647
Petitioners: International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and others
Respondent: Johnson Controls, Inc.
Petitioner's Claim: That Johnson Controls' fetal protection policy discriminates against women in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended 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, Anthony Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting: None
Date of Decision: March 20, 1991
Decision: Ruled against Johnson Controls, Inc. by finding that their fetal protection policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the PDA
Significance: The ruling prohibited any discrimination based on a worker's ability to have children. The Court recognized a woman's right to make her own decisions about pregnancy, during potentially harmful work, and the economic needs of her family.
Page 648
Sex (gender) discrimination, the unfair treatment of a person or group of persons because of their sex, was common in the American workplace until passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity), Section 703, parts (a)(2) of the act read,
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to limit, segregate [separate out] or classify his employees in any way which would deprive [take away] or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities . . . because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Although the act clearly prohibited discrimination based on sex in the workplace, nowhere did it address the issue of pregnant workers. Fetal (referring to the unborn child) protection policies barring fertile women (capable of bearing children) from certain jobs out of fear that those jobs could cause harm to a fetus (unborn child) carried by the women became widespread in the 1970s. Given the fact that only women can become pregnant, these policies quickly became controversial. Women's rights advocates believed the policies violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by depriving women workers certain employment opportunities. In response, Congress amended (changed or add to make clearer) Title VII with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978. The part of the PDA which amended Title VII stated that unless pregnant employees differ from others "in their ability or inability to work" they must be "treated the same" as other employees "for all employment-related purposes." In other words, a woman could not be discriminated against merely for her potential to become pregnant...
To continue reading
Request your trial