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.[1]References
- Litigating reproductive and developmental health in the aftermath of UAW versus Johnson Controls. Clauss, C.A., Berzon, M., Bertin, J. Environ. Health Perspect. (1993) [Pubmed]
Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenesOpen Access LicencePrivacy PolicyTerms of Useapsburg
