1. International Union v Johnson Controls, Inc.
2. The defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. is being sued by the plaintiff International Union for the practice of excluding females from battery manufacturing jobs due to the high lead exposure levels. The high lead level within the process of manufacturing batteries has been linked to health risk that can harm any fetus carried by a female employee. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the defendant did not employ women in the battery manufacturing jobs until June 1977. This is when the defendant announced its first policy concerning employment of women in jobs with the risk of lead exposure.
3. This warning informed the female employees that work in the lead exposed areas of the battery manufacturing poses a risk to an unborn child. The female employees were required to sign in acknowledgement of the risk. From 1979 through 1983, eight female employees became pregnant while working in an area where they were exposed to lead. The defendant shifted its policy from one of warning, to one of exclusion. It is the defendant’s policy that females who are pregnant or who are capable of bearing children will not be placed into jobs involving lead exposure or which could expose them to lead through the exercise of job bidding, bumping, transfer or promotion rights. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendant’s fetal protection policy violated title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court summary judgment was for the defendant. The court of appeals affirmed and the plaintiff appealed.
4. …show more content…
Is the defendants''’ exclusion policy fall within the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) or violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when excluding women from jobs that expose them to lead?
5. Both the district and appeals courts must believe that it does, as they have awarded judgment for the
2. The defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. is being sued by the plaintiff International Union for the practice of excluding females from battery manufacturing jobs due to the high lead exposure levels. The high lead level within the process of manufacturing batteries has been linked to health risk that can harm any fetus carried by a female employee. Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the defendant did not employ women in the battery manufacturing jobs until June 1977. This is when the defendant announced its first policy concerning employment of women in jobs with the risk of lead exposure.
3. This warning informed the female employees that work in the lead exposed areas of the battery manufacturing poses a risk to an unborn child. The female employees were required to sign in acknowledgement of the risk. From 1979 through 1983, eight female employees became pregnant while working in an area where they were exposed to lead. The defendant shifted its policy from one of warning, to one of exclusion. It is the defendant’s policy that females who are pregnant or who are capable of bearing children will not be placed into jobs involving lead exposure or which could expose them to lead through the exercise of job bidding, bumping, transfer or promotion rights. The plaintiff filed suit alleging that the defendant’s fetal protection policy violated title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court summary judgment was for the defendant. The court of appeals affirmed and the plaintiff appealed.
4. …show more content…
Is the defendants''’ exclusion policy fall within the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) or violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when excluding women from jobs that expose them to lead?
5. Both the district and appeals courts must believe that it does, as they have awarded judgment for the