Everipedia Logo
Everipedia is now IQ.wiki - Join the IQ Brainlist and our Discord for early access to editing on the new platform and to participate in the beta testing.
United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that private sector policies prohibiting women from knowingly working in potentially hazardous occupations are discriminatory and in violation of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.[1] The case revolved around Johnson Controls' policy of excluding fertile women from working in battery manufacturing jobs because batteries contain high amounts of lead, which entails health risks to people's reproductive systems (both men and women) and fetuses. At the time the case was heard, it was considered one of the most important sex-discrimination cases since the passage of Title VII.[2]

United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
Argued October 10, 1990
Decided March 21, 1991
Full case nameInternational Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers Of America, UAW, et al. vs. Johnson Controls, Inc.
Docket no.89-1215 [14]
Citations499 U.S. 187 [15] (more)
111 S. Ct. 1196; 113 L. Ed. 2d 158
ArgumentOral argument [16]
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement [17]
Case history
Prior680 F. Supp. 309 [18] (E.D. Wis. 1988); affirmed, 886 F.2d 871 [19] (7th Cir. 1989); cert. granted, 494 U.S. 1055 (1990).
Holding
Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, forbids sex-specific fetal-protection policies, as incapability of becoming pregnant is not a "bona fide occupational qualification."
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
Byron White**·**Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun**·**John P. Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor**·**Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy**·**David Souter
Case opinions
MajorityBlackmun, joined by Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter
ConcurrenceWhite, joined by Rehnquist, Kennedy
ConcurrenceScalia
Laws applied
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978

Opinion of the Court

The majority opinion by Justice Blackmun held that that Title VII prohibits gender–specific fetal protection policies. Hence based on that statute, the Court decided against Johnson Controls by concluding that the company’s fetal protection policy contravened Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the PDA; and the company's gender-specific rule was biased and inequitable because it permitted fertile men, but not fertile women, to decide whether to work in jobs subjected to lead exposure while manufacturing batteries. The court rejected Johnson Controls' argument that their policy fell under the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) defense because the protection of employees' fetuses was not an essential part of the business's operation. [3][4][5][6][7][8]

References

[1]
Citation Linksupreme.justia.comUnited Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991).
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[2]
Citation Linkopenlibrary.orgPresser, Arlynn Leiber; Bertin, Joan (June 1990). "Women at Work: Should 'Fetal Protection' Policies Be Upheld". ABA Journal. American Bar Association. 76 (6): 38–39.
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[3]
Citation Linkic.galegroup.comMezey, Susan Gluck (2008). "UAW v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)" (Gale: U.S. History in Context). Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States. Volume 5. Macmillan Reference USA.
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[4]
Citation Linkwww.osha.govShapiro, Robert A. (Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel) (July 11, 1991). "Policy guidance on the Supreme Court Decision". Occupational Safety & Health Administration.
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[5]
Citation Linkscholarlycommons.law.hofstra.eduBernstein, Andrew Evan (1992). "UAW v. Johnson Controls: A Final Word on Fetal Protection Policies and Their Effect on Women's Rights in Today's Economy." Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal 9.2: 5.
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[6]
Citation Linkbooks.google.comJennings, Marianne (2015). Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment. Canada: Cengage Learning. pp. 715–722.
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[7]
Citation Linkbooks.google.comSchneid, Thomas D. (2012). Discrimination Law Issues for the Safety Professional. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; Google Books. pp. 168–171.
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[8]
Citation Linkwww.oyez.org"United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc" (Web page with Audio Files). 0YEZ Project. Chicago-Kent College of Law. 2015. Audio files available for the Oral Argument and the Opinion Announcement
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[9]
Citation Linkscholarship.law.wm.edu"The Employer's Fetal Injury Quandary After Johnson Controls"
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[10]
Citation Linkscholar.google.comGoogle Scholar
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[11]
Citation Linksupreme.justia.comJustia
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[12]
Citation Linkcdn.loc.govLibrary of Congress
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[13]
Citation Linkwww.oyez.orgOyez (oral argument audio)
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[14]
Citation Linkwww.supremecourt.gov89-1215
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[15]
Citation Linksupreme.justia.com187
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[16]
Citation Linkwww.oyez.orgOral argument
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[17]
Citation Linkwww.oyez.orgOpinion announcement
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[18]
Citation Linklaw.justia.com309
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[19]
Citation Linklaw.justia.com871
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM
[20]
Citation Linksupreme.justia.com187
Sep 29, 2019, 12:14 AM