Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T03:37:53.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Equal Employment Opportunity under Title VII and the Exclusion of Fertile Women from the Toxic Workplace

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Mary Ellen Devereux
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Many modern work environments expose employees to the risk of injury from toxic substances. Attention to this risk may extend beyond the immediate concern for the worker's personal health, to concern that the worker's capacity to produce healthy offspring may be impaired. The conditions of employment in a particular workplace may require exposure to chemical agents that are toxic to the reproductive system of one sex and not of the other, toxic to the reproductive processes in both sexes, toxic to the developing fetus but not to the adult, or a combination of the above. Employers that exclude susceptible members of one sex from the workplace in order to prevent exposure to toxic agents, do so at the risk of violating federal employment discrimination law.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , September 1984 , pp. 164 - 172
Copyright
© 1984 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See generally H.R. Rep. No. 1341, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (July 14, 1976).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Note, Sexual Equality Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Columbia Law Review 83(3): 690–726 (April 1983); Note, The Pregnant Employee's Appearance as a BFOQ Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 14(1): 195–227 (Fall 1982); Wald, S. E. Judicial Construction of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment to Title VII: Ignoring Congressional intent, American University Law Review 31 (3): 591–612 (Spring 1982); Howard L. G., Hazardous Substances in the Workplace: Implications for the Employment Rights of Women, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 129(4): 798–855 (April 1981); Andrade V. M., The Toxic Workplace: Title VU Protection for the Potentially Pregnant Person, Harvard Women's Law Journal 4(1): 71–103 (Spring 1981); Williams W. W., Firing the Woman to Protect the Fetus: The Reconciliation of Federal Protection with Employment Opportunity Goals Under Title VII, Georgetown Law Journal 69(3): 641–704 (February 1981): Northstein G. Z. Ayers J. P., Sex-Based Considerations of Differentiation in the Workplace: Exploring the Biomedical Interface Between OSHA and Title VII, Villanova Law Review 26(2): 239–321 (January 1981); Furnish H. A., Prenatal Exposure to Fetally Toxic Work Environments: The Dilemma of the 1978 Pregnancy Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Iowa Law Review 66(1): 63–129 (October 1980); Note, Birth Defects Caused by Parental Exposure to Workplace Hazards: The Interface of Title VII With OSHA and Tort Law, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 12(2): 237–60 (Winter 1979); Samuelson J.I., Employment Rights of Women in The Toxic Workplace, California Law Review 65(5): 1113–42 (September 1977).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §2000 e-(k) (1976 & Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
Furnish, H. A., Prenatal Exposure to Fetally Toxic Work Environments: The Dilemma of the 1978 Pregnancy Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Iowa Law Review 66(1): 63, 77–79 (October 1980) [hereinafter referred to as Furnish].Google ScholarPubMed
See Hricko, A.. Working for Your Life: A Woman's Guide to Job Health Hazards (Labor Occupational Health Program, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.) (3rd ed. 1976) at B-1 to C-40.Google Scholar
Cristman v. American Cyanamid Company, 92 F.R.D. 441 (1981). See also Williams, W. W., Firing the Woman to Protect the Fetus: The Reconciliation of Federal Protection with Employment Opportunity Goals Under Title VII, Georgetown Law Journal 69(3): 641, 641–42 (February 1981) [hereinafter referred to as Williams].Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, , supra note 6, lists several of these cases: Benson v. Environmental Protection and Aeration Sys., Inc., No. 78-2610 (W.D. Tenn., filed Sept, 5, 1979) (welder alleged that she was turned away at assigned job site on ground that women should not be exposed to lead); EEOC v. General Motors Corp., No. 76-538-E (S.D. Md., filed Sept. 22, 1976) (non-fertile woman challenged General Motors” policy of excluding all women from jobs involving lead exposure); Read v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., No. 75-1473 (W.D. Pa., filed Nov. 13, 1975) (class challenge to St. Joe's policy of excluding fertile women from lead exposure to jobs); Toomef v. General Motors Corp., No. 76-101-C (S.D. Ind., filed Feb. 14, 1976) (applicant challenged General Motors” refusal to hire women capable of bearing children). Id., at 642 n. 11.Google Scholar
Northstein, G. Z. Ayres, J. P., Sex-Based Considerations of Differentiation in the Workplace: Exploring the Biomedical Interface Between OSHA and Title VII, Villanova Law Review 26(2): 239, 244–46 (January 1981) [hereinafter referred to as Differentiation in the Workplace]Google Scholar
Claxton, L. D. Barry, P. Z., Chemical Mutagenesis: An Emerging Issue for Public Health, American Journal of Public Health 67(11): 1037–42 (November 1977).Google ScholarPubMed
Hunt, V. R., Occupational Health Problems of Pregnant Women: A Report and Recommendations for the Office of the Secretary, Health, Education and Welfare (U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C.) (April 30, 1975) at 43–44.Google Scholar
Differentiation in the Workplace, supra note 8, at 244–45.Google Scholar
Hricko, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Id. at B-6.Google Scholar
Id. at B-8-9.Google Scholar
Samuelson, J. I., Employment Rights of Women in the Toxic Workplace, California Law Review 65(5): 1113, 1118 n. 17 (September 1977).Google Scholar
Williams, , supra note 6, at 661 n. 130.Google Scholar
Howard, L. G., Hazardous Substances in the Workplace: Implications for the Employment Rights of Women, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 129(4): 798, 806 (April 1981).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §2000e-2000h (1976 & Supp. 1978).Google Scholar
Pub. L. No. 95-555, §1, 92 Stat. 2076 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(k) (Supp. 1979)).Google Scholar
429 U.S. 125 (1976) [hereinafter referred to as Gilbert].Google Scholar
Id. at 138–40.Google Scholar
434 U.S. 136 (1977).Google Scholar
Id. at 142.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C, §2000e-(k) (Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
H.R. Rep. No. 95-948. 95th Cong., 2d Sess. at 7, reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1978: 4749, 4754–55.Google Scholar
435 U.S. 702, 716–17 (1978) [hereinafter referred to as Manhart].Google Scholar
Id. at 715–18.Google Scholar
See International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 355, n. 15 (1977).Google Scholar
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329 (1977) [hereinafter referred to as Dothard].Google Scholar
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e) (1) (1976 & Supp. 1979).Google Scholar
401 U.S. 424 (1971) [hereinafter referred to as Griggs].Google Scholar
Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971); Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971); Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969).Google Scholar
Dotbard, , supra note 29.Google Scholar
Id. at 333.Google Scholar
Id. at 336.Google Scholar
458 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. Va. 1978), aff'd in part and rev'd in part per curiam, 633 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 965 (1981) [hereinafter referred to as Burwell].Google Scholar
458 F. Supp. at 497.Google Scholar
633 F.2d at 366.Google Scholar
Finnerman, H. M., Title VII and Restrictions on Employment of Fertile Women, Labor Law Journal. 31(4): 223, 227–28 (April 1980).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Condit v. United Air Lines, Inc., 558 F.2d 1176 (4th Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 934 (1978).Google Scholar
Dotbard, , supra note 29, at 331.Google Scholar
546 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Ala. 1982).Google Scholar
Id. at 264–65.Google Scholar
408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969) [hereinafter referred to as Weeks].Google Scholar
Id. at 235.Google Scholar
442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 450 (1971).Google Scholar
Id. at 388 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar
444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971).Google Scholar
Id. at 1225.Google Scholar
Dotbard, , supra note 29, at 335.Google Scholar
Weeks, , supra note 45, at 236.Google Scholar
Manhart, , supra note 26, at 716–17.Google Scholar
Griggs, , supra note 32.Google Scholar
Dothard, , supra note 29.Google Scholar
Griggs, , supra note 32, at 431.Google Scholar
444 F.2d 791 (4th Cir. 1971), cert, denied, 404 U.S. 1006 (1971) [hereinafter referred to as Robinson].Google Scholar
Id. at 798.Google Scholar
Occupational Safety and Health Act, Pub. L. No. 91-596, §6, 84 Stat. 1593 (1970), codified at 29 U.S.C. §655 (1976).Google Scholar
Robinson, , supra note 57, at 798.Google Scholar
697 F.2d 1172 (4th Cir. 1982) [hereinafter referred to as Wright].Google Scholar
Id. at 1182.Google Scholar
Id. at 1190. See also Robinson, supra note 57, at 798; Dotbard, supra note 29, at 333.Google Scholar
Wright, , supra note 61, at 1191.Google Scholar
422 U.S. 405 (1975) [hereinafter referred to as Albermarle].Google Scholar
See Chapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 458 F. Supp. 252, 270 (N.D. Ind. 1977); Crockett v. Green, 388 F. Supp. 912, 920 (E.D. Wise. 1975), aff'd, 534 F.2d 715 (7th Cir. 1976).Google Scholar
Griggs, , supra note 32, at 431.Google Scholar
Burwell v. Eastern Airlines, 633 F.2d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
Id. at 365.Google Scholar
Furnish, , supra note 4, at 102.Google Scholar
Id. at 102–05.Google Scholar
Id. at 115–118.Google Scholar
Id. at 116.Google Scholar
Id. at 117.Google Scholar
Id. at 117.Google Scholar
Id. at 118.Google Scholar
See Wright, , supra note 61.Google Scholar