Adi_Hadzic_Case_Briefs_Chapter43

Adi_Hadzic_Case_Briefs_Chapter43 - Case name INTERNATIONAL...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Case name:   INTERNATIONAL  UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND  AGRICULTURAL   IMPLEMENT   WORKERS   OF   AMERICA,   UAW     v.   JOHNSON  CONTROLS, INC. Facts:     Respondent     Johnson   Controls,   Inc.,   manufactures   batteries.   In   the  manufacturing process, the element lead is primary ingredient. Occupational exposure  to lead entails health risks, including the risk of harm to any fetus carried by a female  employee. Consistent with that view, Johnson Controls “stopped short of excluding  women capable of bearing children from lead exposure”, but emphasized that a women  who expected to have a child should not choose a job in which she would have such  exposure. The company also required a women who wished to be considered for  employment to sign a statement that she had been advised of the risk of having a child  while she was exposed to lead. Procedural History:    A group of employees that were affected by the respondent’s  fetal- protection policy filed a class action in the District court claiming that this policy  was gender- discriminating and that it violated the  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 1 The District court granted a summary judgment for defendant- respondent Johnson  Controls.   The   court   decision   was:   “The   court   concluded   that   while   there   is   a  disagreement among the experts regarding the effect of lead on the fetus, the hazard to  the fetus through exposure to lead was established by a considerable body of opinion;  and that petitioners had failed to establish that there is an acceptable alternative policy  which would protect the fetus.” In the second court, the court of Appeals for the Seventh  Circuit affirmed the summary judgment. The case ended up at the Supreme Court  where the decision of the Court of appeals of the Seventh circuit was s reversed, the  Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Issue(s):    Due to the concern about the health of fetus, is an employer allowed to  exclude a fertile female employee from certain jobs? Holding:  The court held that the fetal- protection policy is sex discrimination which is  actually forbidden under the Title VII. Reasoning:   The   court   states:   “Fertile   women,   as   far   as   appears   in   the   record,  participate   in   the  manufacture  of  batteries   as  efficiently  as   anyone  else.   Johnson 
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Controls professed moral and ethical concerns about the welfare of the next generation  do not suffice to establish a BFOQ of female sterility. Decisions about the welfare of  future children must be left to the parents who conceive, bear, support, and raise them 
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/18/2010 for the course INTERNATIO 123345566 taught by Professor Jondelong during the Spring '10 term at SUNY Canton.

Page1 / 6

Adi_Hadzic_Case_Briefs_Chapter43 - Case name INTERNATIONAL...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online