U.A.W. v. Johnson Control, Inc., 499 U.S. 187(1991) - Essay Example

Case and Citation United Auto workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) The United s supreme court passed the ruling on march 20, 1991 that all female employees within child bearing age can’t be treated as potentially pregnant, by stating that a factory cannot bar female employees from specific jobs based on the risks they are exposed to if they become pregnant.PartiesIn the case, the Johnson Controls company is the defendant and the United Autoworkers female employees are the plaintiffsStatement of Facts The Auto workers who are the employees of the company and the management of the company are the two parties involved in the case.

The female employees are accusing under 703 (a) title VII which states that prohibiting potentially fertile or paged women from participating in occupations that may be detrimental to their capacities of reproduction is sex discrimination. The plaintiff claim 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).ClaimsAfter 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.Issues/ Questions presentedThe questions presented in the case was the health hazards that lead exposed to the babies and their mothers in relation to the gender balance and fairness in the work place.HoldingThe 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.

ReasoningExcluding 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 Concurring/dissenting OpinionsThe 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).

Comments/ Personal ImpressionsIn 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 employees.Work citedBecker, Mary. "Reproductive Hazards after Johnson Controls." Hous. L. Rev. 31 (1994): 43.