499 U.S. 187 (1991) (Supreme Court of the United States)
Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls is a landmark Supreme Court decision at the intersection of employment discrimination law and workplace health and safety.
Does an employer's fetal-protection policy that excludes women who are capable of bearing children from certain jobs constitute sex discrimination under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and, if so, can it be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)?
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination "because of sex." The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 clarifies that discrimination "because of sex" includes discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and requires that women affected by such conditions be treated the same as other persons similar in their ability or inability to work. A policy that on its face classifies employees by sex or by childbearing capacity is disparate treatment and can be lawful only if sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). The BFOQ defense is extremely narrow and applies only where sex is reasonably necessary to the essence of the employer's business; generalized concerns about safety, customer preferences, or potential third-party harms or tort liability do not ordinarily satisfy BFOQ. Business necessity is not a defense to facial disparate treatment; it pertains to disparate impact claims.
Yes. Johnson Controls' policy is facial sex discrimination because it excludes women based on childbearing capacity, and it is not justified as a BFOQ. The policy violates Title VII as amended by the PDA.
The decision cements that excluding women because of their capacity to become pregnant is sex discrimination under Title VII and the PDA. It narrows the BFOQ defense by confirming that the "essence of the business" test is not satisfied by paternalistic safety concerns or fear of liability. For law students, the case illuminates: (1) the difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact frameworks; (2) the stringent limits of the BFOQ defense; (3) the PDA's role in prohibiting decisions based on pregnancy and childbearing capacity; and (4) how federal antidiscrimination law interacts with employer safety policies and tort-liability anxieties.