Introduction
The issue of fetal protection and the safety of pregnant mothers as provided in the Johnsons’ Control fetal policy is one that, not only draws particular attention to the parties that it seeks to address, but also sets into motion a wide variety of views and analysis when it comes to interpretation and application. In this case, however, the focus is on the main plaintiffs, as mentioned. The idea of protection of fertile women from exposure to lead is put in a way that raises both passive and active questions, especially on the part of the plaintiffs. This is also the case when it comes to the effects of the substance (Congress of the United States of America, 2004).
The Plaintiffs and Their Claims
Employers and manufactures association that deal with such industries as battery manufacture form the core of the defendants; especially since the policy directly points to them and their roles as far as employee protection is concerned.
The policy bars the involvement of what could be invaluable resource to their companies in the form of qualified personnel with the excuse of possible risks to their well being, without necessarily considering all the factors that go along with the production requirements. Furthermore, there is a requirement for transfer of pregnant women to safer departments in the organizations without revoking already existing benefits, or cutting their salaries irrespective of the kind of work they do in their new capacities. This is despite the financial implication such a move would have on the company, negative or otherwise according to Congress of the United States of America (2004). This is the case that is presented in this case study.
The plaintiffs include the men employees, who are subjected to same reproductive health risks but seem to be left out by the policy. This is an issue when considering gender inequalities, since labor requirements do not segregate but instead direct for equality and strict observation of the same. This may interest gender activists as well. Those mentioned include Mary Craig, Elsie Nason and Donald Penny who filed individual complaints. Plaintiffs not mentioned include employees that may feel aggravated by being termed as ‘infertile’ especially if their condition is medical rather than natural, or when they feel they still are capable of conceiving according to Luban (2001).
District’s Magistrate Ruling
The District’s Magistrate court ruled in favor of Johnsons Control, and in its view after considering experts’ opinions which could not agree on the difference in effects of exposure to lead of adults and fetuses indicated that there was nothing the policy could adopt that was in any way better than what it stated with respect to protection of the fetus from exposures to lead and the corresponding negative effects. In addition, the plaintiffs were not able to show what could have been done differently to avert the same. The firm therefore had the mandate to set up a policy that best served its interest as a business entity as was the case with the policy (Congress of the United States of America, 2004).
The Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals stood by the District Magistrate’s ruling, stating that indeed Johnsons Control policy was of acceptable standards. There was no unquestionable claim by the plaintiffs via certain proof that they were violated in whatever way by the policy. It therefore was allowed to stand, and this was further reinforced by the BFOQ test taken by the court on the very policy which indicated that it passed the requirements. This ruling was unanimous, given that seven out of eleven judges were I its favor.
Some judges did not consider this ruling appropriate particularly with respect to the company’s BFOQ. They felt that this approach was not necessarily sufficient to require a ruling of that magnitude without giving the plaintiffs an opportunity to legally challenge the same BFOQ. They also expressed their view in the sense that the nature of the claims did not only encompass the business nature of the organization- high productivity efficiency-, but also other just as important spheres of the employee welfare such as their safety.
Supreme Court Decision to Take the Case
The apparent conflict between the appellate judges prompted the Supreme Court to intervene in this matter. On one side, the judges that ruled in favor of the policy felt that it provided the best representative interest the company could adopt, and had expert opinions and run tests that further strengthened their claim. On the other hand were dissenting judges that expressed their dissatisfaction in the court’s decision to pass the policy on the grounds that it allowed gross discrimination of certain aspects among the employees, thus asserting that the plaintiffs stood a chance if they were to contest the provisions (American Civil Liberties Union, 2007).
In its analysis, the Supreme Court sought to draw comparisons to other fetal policies that have been considered in the past so as to assist it in deliberation of Johnsons Control policy situation. Among them was the aviation policy, which was addressing fetal issues and pregnant women. The cases it examined ranged from treatment of pregnant flight assistance as they progressed with their pregnancy- whether or not it was appropriate for flight companies to lay them off with respect to care for the unborn and not the individual passengers.
Secondly, the case of aging flight engineers where some were considered too old to be performing some of their duties efficiently given the demanding nature of their job was also considered. Should their efficiency be compromised then the flights’ safety is automatically put to danger as noted by Luban (2001).
Supreme Court Conclusion
The court therefore came to the conclusion that for some reasons and in special cases, policies that make exceptions could be accepted. This is especially where the general welfare of the subject of business- operational, safety and third party protection are put to risk beyond any reasonable doubt and can be reflected as so are concerned Therefore, the court concluded that it is only acceptable for a firm’s policy to discriminate against a woman on her ability to conceive when such a move is without question to the best interest of the woman and the firm ethically, health wise and economically.
However, this is likely to impact the firm financially in settlements and setting up mechanisms to deal with contingencies that may arise from unprecedented occurrence of similar nature. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2000).
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2007). Coercive and Punitive Governmental Responses to Women’s Conduct during Pregnancy. Web.
Center for Reproductive Rights. (2000). Punishing Women for Their Behavior during Pregnancy: an Approach That Undermines Women’s Health and Children’s Interests. Web.
Congress of the United States of America. (2004). Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004. Web.
Luban, D. (2001). Law’s Blindfold: Conflict of Interest in the Professions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.