Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:50:44 EDT
Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
Sender: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: ACTSNYC**At_Symbol_Here**CS.COM
Subject: Re: pregnant student in chemistry lab

The Johnson Controls case only applies to employees.  You can't exclude a woman from higher paying jobs just because they involve chemicals toxic to the fetus. 

However, industry has a dilemma.  While the mother can't sue if she gives birth to a defective child because she wanted to work in that hazardous job, the child can sue the employer for damages!  So the bottom line is that employers need to provide protection in those jobs that will preclude fetal damage. 


In a message dated 8/9/2010 6:32:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, info**At_Symbol_Here**ILPI.COM writes:

Many good common sense replies to all of this so far.  Just thought 
I'd chime in with one cautionary note for those of you in an employer-
employee relationship.

I am not an attorney.  This is not legal advice.  But it is my 
understanding that it is **ILLEGAL** to exclude workers of one sex 
from a job for the purpose of protecting fetuses. See:

Previous post   |  Top of Page   |   Next post

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.