m that the respondent’s policy has created facial classification at the work place that is based on gender which discriminates against women on the basis of their gender (Becker 43).
After some of the pregnant employees in a battery manufacturing became pregnant while maintaining blood lead levels, the company implemented a policy which barred all fertile women from the job. The affected employees filed a case in the district court claiming the policy constituted sex discrimination which violates the 1964 civil rights act. The court of appeal affirmed that despite the risk the company’s policy is discriminative.
The holding of the court was that women should be given equal opportunities as men in the working place regardless of the risks since baring women from some positions is discrimination based on gender.
Excluding fertile women or women with child bearing capacity from lead exposed job positions encourages facial classification that is based on gender and this this discriminates against the female employees with regard to their sex under 703 a of title VII
The company’s lawyer argued that the safety of employees and their offspring should also be a major concern of the companies and the Johnson holding company was accepted to take the actions it took. He argued that the policy was not based on gender but the safety of the workers (Becker 44).
In my opinion the company should only bar pregnant women from the jobs since the lead component is more hazardous to the foetus. There is evidence that the lead levels found in eight pregnant women was potentially harmful to the baby. The company barring all fertile women is sexually discriminative as by doing so it will be favouring the male