DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

About This Archive  |   DCHAS-L 2010 Index   |   DCHAS-L Yearly Index   |   DCHAS-L Home Page

About This Archive

DCHAS-L 2010 Index

DCHAS-L Yearly Index

DCHAS-L Home Page

---

Demystify: 

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. 

Monona


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:

    http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=3DINTERPRETATIONS&p_id=3D20332
    http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html