Case 4: Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) (Mallor, 16th Ed., No. 4 p. 1444).

Summary: Johnson Controls, Inc., manufactures batteries. A primary ingredient in Johnson Controls battery manufacturing process is lead, occupational exposure to which entails health risks, including the risk of harm to any fetus carried by a female employee. After eight of its employees became pregnant while maintaining blood lead levels exceeding that noted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) as critical for a worker planning to have a family, respondent announced a policy barring all women, except those whose infertility was medically documented, from jobs involving actual or potential lead exposure exceeding the OSHA standard. Evidence in the record established that exposure to lead also had a debilitating effect on the male reproductive system. Petitioners, a group of female employees affected by respondent's fetal-protection policy, filed a class action in the District Court, claiming that the policy constituted sex discrimination violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The court granted summary judgment for Johnson Controls and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the proper standard for evaluating the policy was the business necessity inquiry; that respondent was entitled to summary judgment because petitioners had failed to satisfy their burden of persuasion as to each of the elements of the business necessity defense under the McDonnell Douglas shifting burden of proof; and that even if the proper evaluative standard was bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) analysis, respondent still was entitled to summary judgment because its fetal-protection policy is reasonably necessary to further the industrial safety concern that is part of the essence of respondent's business. Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.The PDA provision that amended Title VII specifies that, unless pregnant employees differ from others in their ability or inability to work, they must be treated the same as other employees for all employment-related purposes. In other words, the PDA prohibits an employer from discriminating against a woman because of her capacity to become pregnant unless her reproductive potential prevents her from performing the duties of her job.

True or False. Explain.

A1. By excluding women with childbearing capacity from lead-exposed jobs, respondent's policy creates a facial classification based on gender and explicitly discriminates against women on the basis of their sex contrary to Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

A2. Because Johnson Controls policy created a facial gender classification which explicitly constituted sex discrimination, there is no shifting burden of proof and the business necessity defense is inapplicable.

B1. Prohibiting female employees with childbearing capacity from being exposed to lead cannot be justified as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ), because their capacity to become pregnant does not prevent them from performing the duties of her job.

B2. The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold the prohibition against women with childbearing capacity working in lead exposed jobs, because Johnson Controls faces potential tort liability for fetal injuries and its increased costs due to workers compensation insurance.

C1. Because exposure to lead affects the reproductive systems of both women and men, Johnson Controls policy prohibiting women with childbearing capacity from being exposed to lead cannot qualify as a BFOQ.