International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Blackmun
In this case we are concerned with an employer’s gender-based fetal-protection policy. May an employer exclude a fertile female employee from certain jobs because of its concern for the health of the fetus the woman might conceive?
HH
Respondent Johnson Controls, Inc., manufactures batteries. In the manufacturing process, the element lead is a primary ingredient. Occupational exposure to lead entails health risks, including the risk of harm to any fetus carried by a female employee.
*191Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, became law, Johnson Controls did not employ any woman in a…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment.
2Cases cited49 opinions
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. ThurstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Frontiero v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by407 opinions
- Freytag v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- John Crumpton, IV v. Daryl Gates Tom Bradley Tom Reddin Ed Davis Herbert Boeckmann Maxwell E. Greenberg Barbara L. Schlei Robert TalcottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1991
- Epic Systems Corp. v. LewisSupreme Court of the United States · 2018
- Fitzpatrick v. City of AtlantaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
- Madeline E. Brown v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General of the United States Postal ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
402 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.