Litigating reproductive and developmental health in the aftermath of UAW versus Johnson Controls.
In a major decision handed down last term (International Union [UAW] versus Johnson Controls, Inc.), the Supreme Court ruled that employment practices excluding fertile or pregnant women from the workplace because of alleged concerns for fetal health constitute illegal sex discrimination. We analyze the three opinions in the case and explain why the decision was an essential first step to promoting reproductive and developmental health in the workplace. Continued progress toward eliminating or reducing reproductive occupational risks will require comprehensive legal strategies involving private lawsuits, governmental regulation and enforcement actions, and new legislation designed to preserve the existing rights of workers and to obtain new and additional protections. Finally, we caution that, in designing such strategies, it will be important to avoid solutions that either shift responsibility for reproductive health to workers, rather than to employers, or that undermine other important legal rights.
Clauss
C A
CA
University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison 53706.
Berzon
M
M
Bertin
J
J
D005314:Embryonic and Fetal Development / Q000187:drug effects*; D005260:Female; D015386:Hazardous Substances / Q000009:adverse effects*; D006801:Humans; D007750:Labor Unions / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008297:Male; D016273:Occupational Exposure / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000517:prevention & control; D016272:Occupational Health / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D009790:Occupations; D011287:Prejudice; D012098:Reproduction / Q000187:drug effects*; D014481:United States; D014489:United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration; D014931:Women, Working; D014942:Workers' Compensation / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*
D015386:Hazardous Substances