Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc Case Study - 15

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls Inc - Case Study Example 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, respondents 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). 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.The law also cites that, unless the pregnant employees differ from others in their expertise, they must all get both equal treatment and opportunities