Johnson's Controls

1. Exposition  The manufactures of batteries have known for a while that the process used to make batteries can harm the fetus of a women due to lead exposure.  Because of this, many manufactures prevented women from working in a position where they could be exposed to lead.  The manufactures claimed it was the fetus’ right not to be harmed and the company’s right to protect itself from damages.  The business claimed it did this to protect itself from damages.   Lawsuits could be brought by the mother or the fetus, due to the fetus’ possibility of being injured during its development stages.  Johnson Controls developed and followed a policy that was in effect until 1977, which prohibited women from completing the kind of work that exposed them to lead.  In June of 1977, Johnson Controls required women to sign a statement relieving the company of any responsibility.  The company educated the women on the dangers involved with exposing their fetus to the before they had them sign the statement.  This new policy did not violate the rights of women.  In 1982, Johnson Controls changed its policy once again.  It prevented women from working in areas that exposed them to lead.  The only way a woman would be allowed in a position, that exposed them to lead, was by providing medical documentation that verified their inability to have children.  This decision was made after eight of its pregnant employees were tested, had higher blood levels than safely allowed by OSHA for a pregnant woman.  All eight babies were born without birth defects or abnormalities.  Because of this new policy, Elsie Nelson, a fifty-year old divorcee, was transferred to a lower paying job.  Mary Craig, decided to be sterilized so she was able to keep her current position.  These two workers and many others formed a class-action suit against Johnson Controls.  They claimed that Johnson Controls’ Fetal Protection Policy violated the rights of women, which constituted discrimination based on sex.  The sex of an individual was not a job-related condition for working around the batteries.  The United States Supreme Court overturned the previous ruling by the United States District Court.  The United States District Court had ruled in favor of Johnson Controls and this ruling had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that the policy violated Women’s Rights because of the Civil Rights Act.  Three of the Supreme Court justices expressed their views, which were different from the previous ruling.  They stated, “The Court’s narrow interpretation…means that an employer cannot exclude even pregnant women from an environment highly toxic to their fetuses.  It is foolish to think that Congress intended such a result.”(1)

1. Analysis  Businesses have a right to protect their best interests.   Johnson Controls prevented women from working in an environment that would endanger the women’s fetuses.  Some women do not know they are pregnant immediately and others may not understand the impact or dangers of lead exposures.  Due to the lack of understanding, one may keep it from their employer, from fear of losing their position.  If a fetus were harmed, due to lead exposures, Johnson Controls would ultimately be liable.  Johnson Controls is held to a higher standard and must consider the safety of all employees and their fetuses while working for the business.  The company must also protect itself, so it is able to continue operations and to employ their workers.  The policy implemented by Johnson Controls was the only way to ensure a fetus would not be exposed to lead, have possible birth defects or abnormalities and protect Johnson Controls from future damages.  The criteria of this position did not refuse the ability of women to work in this position.  A woman should not have to complete an unnecessary medical procedure or take a cut in pay, simply because they are a woman.  A woman is ultimately responsible for the safety of her fetus and has the right to make choices regarding her fetus.  A woman cannot be discriminated against simple because of her sex.  Women should be treated as an equal to men.(1)

1. Evaluation  Johnson Controls should have respected the rights of women.  They implemented the policy that did not allow women to work in a specific position without medical documentation, stating they were unable to bear children.  Johnson Controls made an unfair decision, when not allowing women to work in a position where they could be exposed to lead.  Johnson Controls made an immorally decision by discriminating against their female employees.  Johnson Controls should not have been concerned with the outcome.  Johnson Controls was worried about what might happen to them.  When considering the Deontologist Theory, one must do what is morally right without considering anything other than their moral duty.  In this situation Johnson Controls’ moral duty was to treat all employees equally.  Johnson Controls must treat all employees equally according to the Civil Rights Act.  The Act outlawed discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.  It required equal access to employment.(2)  Although, lead exposure can be dangerous to a woman’s fetus; Johnson Controls was not able to prove this limited a woman’s ability to perform the tasks required to fulfill the requirements of the position.  Johnson Controls should make a decision based on fairness, regardless of the outcome.  A company must treat all employees equally as long as each employee can perform the job requirements. Johnson Controls did not know the outcome of these actions and still discriminated against women.  Johns Controls was in violation of the Civil Rights Act and did not treat their women employees fairly.  Johnson Controls put their personal concern for the business before their moral duty to treat all employees fairly.  Treating employees unfairly is always wrong, even if the results of not doing it could harm the business.  

(1)DeGeorge, Richard T., (2010), Business Ethics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey

(2) US National Park Service ‘Civil Rights Act of 1964’ February 03, 2008 [Online] Available  http://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilrights/1964-civil-rights-act.htm (October 09, 2015)

(3)"International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Oct 11, 2015 [Online] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-1215 (October 11, 2015)