Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc - Case Study Example

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc Lead is a primary ingredient used in the manufacturing of batteries. Besides posing considerable harmful effects on human beings, it poses many health problems to fetus carried by expecting mothers (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). Eight employees of a battery manufacturing company who were pregnant exhibited increased leads quantities in their blood more than what OSHA approves to be considerable amount (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). The company later barred all women from working in lead related departments except those who could not have children though after passing clinical tests to ascertain their conditions. This prompted a group of the employees to file a case in the District court. They argued that the policy discriminated against the female gender and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). The district court and the court of appeal granted the respondents a summary judgment on grounds that their fetal-protection policy is reasonably necessary to further the industrial safety concern (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). The petitioners claimed that excluding fertile women from lead-exposed jobs, respondent's policy creates a facial grouping based on gender besides marginalizing them 703(a) of Title VII (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). They claimed the policy is not neutral, because it does not apply to males despite evidence lead’s exposure posing great harm to their reproductive system. They cited that, provided that the fertile women performed their duties as expected, the company has no right to segregate them. Although the respondents argue that, they are concerned about the other coming generation’s status regardless of the law exclusively being for the parents (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc, 1991). Ethical Issues Is the company in line with professional work ethics and fair gender opportunities act by passing the policy discriminating fertile and fertile women from working in the lead related departments? No, the company does not satisfy its expected moral and ethical standards as required in the society by passing a policy that stigmatizes the female gender. Additionally, it also violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that protects all genders from discrimination (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). By so doing, the company would be creating a facial categorization that utilizes gender to segregate women (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). The policy is also not neutral and fair to both the two genders and how the lead affects them. According to the company, the lead affects only the female gender despite concrete evidence that it poses adverse effects on the male reproductive organs .(Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). The law also cites that, unless the pregnant employees differ from others in their expertise, they must all get both equal treatment and opportunities (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). In addition, legislative history and case law bar an employer from discriminating against pregnant women or her pregnancy capacity unless its condition prevents her from performing the expected duties (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). The employees’ fetuses are neither customers nor employees whose safety is a concern of the company’s management (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). In this context, the respondents should get rid of their policy as the female fertile employees participate in manufacturing lead batteries similar to other peers. Alternatives Whether getting rid of the policy of the company would not tarnish the company’s image and still keep the fertile female employees’ comfortable working for the company? Yes, this move by the company would motivate fertile females in the company besides prompting them to work more comfortably and harder than before. This would also be a means of enhancing good publicity of the company in the society because the policy adheres to the female discriminatory fact, which contradicts with business ethics (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). However, by taking this move, the company would be putting the fetus, the fertile mothers and their future families at great risks. This is because lead exposure to fertile women exceeds quantity allowed by OSHA, which poses great risks to the fetus (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). Whether the company should have alter the decisions made and ensure that no fertile woman participated in the lead related department of the company, but still work in other safe departments, under the same payments? By making this decision, it would be unfavorable to some of the fertile women whose passion in the manufacture of batteries lies in the lead department. It might also reflect negatively on the companies’ quality production if the women are not skilled in the department they move to work under by the management. Despite this, the move would also reduce greatly the health risks of lead exposure to carried fetus. Recommendations The company should adopt or implement the first alternative as well as getting rid of the policy that bars healthy women from working in lead related departments (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991) .This is because the policy discriminates women capable of giving birth from working in the department of their interest. The policy also violates the law that fosters equal work opportunities for all genders (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). Company should also adopt the alternative measure to enhance its good publicity. Contrary to the second alternative, the first alternative does not affect the company’s products and its performance. Fertile women in the lead department have the necessary qualifications to work in that field. The concerned women are also aware of the risk the lead poses to their future families and the decision on the welfare of their families is specifically on the women to decide (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc 1991). Reference Rehnquist C. J., Kennedy J. & Scalia J, (2003), Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc, 89-1215, Detroit, U.S.A, Print. Read More