## Facts

- Johnson Controls, Inc. manufactured batteries using lead, creating reproductive health risks, including risk of fetal harm from maternal lead exposure.
- In 1977, the company warned employees about lead-related reproductive risks but did not exclude women from lead-exposed jobs.
- After several pregnancies involving employees with elevated blood-lead levels, the company adopted a “fetal-protection policy.”
- The policy barred all women capable of bearing children from jobs with lead exposure above the OSHA standard, except women with medically documented infertility.
- Men were permitted to hold the same jobs despite evidence that lead exposure can also harm male reproductive function.
- The policy excluded fertile women from higher-paying or preferred positions solely due to potential pregnancy.

## Issues

1. Whether a policy excluding women based on childbearing capacity constitutes discrimination because of sex or pregnancy under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
2. If the policy is discriminatory, whether it is permitted under Title VII’s bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit.
- The Court held the policy was facial discrimination because it explicitly classified employees by potential for pregnancy, which Title VII (as amended by the PDA) treats as sex discrimination.
- The Court rejected the use of a disparate-impact “business necessity” framework because the policy was expressly sex-based.
- The Court held Johnson Controls did not prove the exclusion was a valid BFOQ because fertility status did not affect women’s ability to perform the essential job tasks.
- The Court ruled that Title VII forbids sex-specific fetal-protection policies of this type.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PDA, discrimination based on pregnancy or potential pregnancy is discrimination “because of sex” for Title VII purposes.
- A policy that explicitly excludes women of childbearing capacity is facial disparate treatment, regardless of a protective motive.
- The BFOQ defense is narrow and allows sex-based exclusions only when sex (or a sex-linked trait) is reasonably necessary to the essence of the business and tied to job performance.
- Avoiding fetal risk or potential liability does not qualify as a BFOQ when the employee can perform the job and the risk concerns potential offspring rather than job capability.
- Decisions about accepting reproductive risk cannot be assigned to employers through categorical sex-based job bans.

## Conclusion

The Court held that excluding fertile women from lead-exposed jobs is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII and the PDA, and that fetal protection and liability concerns do not satisfy the narrow BFOQ exception absent a job-performance necessity.


Int’l Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991)