Johnson Controls Problems

In 1990 the Supreme Court heard the argument of international Union UAW vs. Johnson Controls. The employer Johnson Controls which is a global company that specializes in improving the efficiency of buildings, automobiles and batteries denied female employees of childbearing ages from certain positions. The company argued that exposure to high amounts of lead in these positions would lead to severe birth defects of fetuses and mothers. Johnson Controls establish the fetal protection policy to protect women's reproductive health and the health of developing fetuses. After 8 employees became pregnant after being exposed to high amounts of lead in these roles. Members of the International Union filed a class action suit and claim that the policy discriminated against female workers under title seven of the Civil Rights Act.

Title seven of the Civil Rights Act prevents employers from discriminating against employees and future employees based on their gender, race, skin color, national origin, and beliefs. This act was later amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Which prohibited employers from discriminating childbirth or related medical conditions. The equal employment opportunity commission states that pregnancy must be treated the same as any other disability by providing the opportunity such as light-duty modified tasks disability leave or leave without pay under title 7 and employer has the opportunity to legally discriminate in Personnel decisions regarding employment on the basis of such protected traits if the trait is considered a bona fide occupational qualification or BFOQ. A BFOQ can be declared if there is a direct relationship between a specific protected trait and the ability to do the job that there is no less restrictive alternative available and that the BFOQ relates to the core mission of the organization.

This the basis of Johnson Controls defense unlike in 2015 when restaurant Ruby Tuesday was ordered to pay $100,000 to two male employees for being denied server promotional opportunities that were being reserved for women. Johnson Controls argues that allowing female workers that may have become pregnant left the company open liability lawsuits if their newborn children experience birth defects as a result of their working conditions. The levels of lead which were the main ingredient in many of its products that workers would be exposed to insert and rolls or higher than deemed safe by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is the federal agency charged with regulating work for safety Orr safety. In order to allow female workers to work in these roles, the workers must have their infertility medically documented.

The company argued that the language in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that the employee must be able to perform the work as safely as someone who's not in that category and that the BFOQ defense supplies in this case. The BFOQ in this instance was the ability to complete the duties of the role without exposed risk of injury. While Johnson Controls argues that exposure to high levels of lead would cause severe brain defects in fetuses, they were unable to pinpoint exactly at what level they’d become a danger. As, the employer, they felt that they were responsible for the materials they manufactured while ensuring the safety of their employees. The International Union, representing United Automobile Workers, filed a class action lawsuit against their employer, Johnson Control, stating that their policy was illegally discriminating against female workers based on their gender. The sound that the provision in their policy that allowed employees to work in certain positions by having their infertility documented betrayed their privacy and right under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or for short HIPAA.

The union rejected the notion that being a female employee during childbearing ages put themselves in the fetus is at risk as being a bona fide occupation qualification defense. During the hearing, the union argued that the evaluated level of lead in certain positions was just as likely to harm male employees as well as female employees. However, under the Federal Protection policy enforced by Johnson Controls, only female workers were barred from working in certain positions. On March 20th, 1991, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Appellate Court that was originally in favor of Johnson Controls. The court found that while evaluating lead could cause harm to the reproductive system in women, it could also harm men as well. Since the company only enforced a policy that limited employment for female workers, they found that this policy was, in fact, discriminatory as denied in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Therefore, the bona fide occupation qualification would only apply if the ability to bear children was a requirement to perform the duty in question. Barring all women from certain positions is classified as a discriminatory since it only poses a risk to women who were able to have children. In 1990, the company Johnson Controls lost a class action lawsuit now known as the International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls because the Supreme Court found that that the company violated Title BIO of the Civil Rights Act, which prevents employers from discriminating against employees or applicants based on the persons sex, race, color, national origin, and beliefs. As the employer, Johnson Controls has the duty and responsibility to protect their workers from dangerous atmospheres and chemical levels. However, they feel to acknowledge that the let exposure to men congest as likely cause harm to males reproductive system as it would too females. Even with what could be described as a good intention to protect workers, organizations must constantly be aware of creating a disparate impact scenario that illegally disqualifies people of a certain protected trait for opportunities everyone in the organization is eligible for.