Citation network
Automobile Workers Vs. Johnson Controls
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 20, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Automobile Workers v. JohnsonSearch
-
Controls - 499 U.S. 187 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Automobile Workers v. JohnsonSearch
-
their burden of persuasion as to each of the elements of the business necessity defense under Wards Cove Packing Co. v. AtonioSearch
-
does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. Cf. Phillips v. MartinSearch
-
of the particular business. Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CriswellSearch
-
cannot justify a discriminatory refusal to hire members of that gender. See, e.g., Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
see id. at 883-885, first reviewed fetal-protection opinions from the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits. See Hayes v. ShelbySearch
-
Memorial Hospital, 726 F.2d 1543 (CA11 1984), and Wright v. OlinSearch
-
Id. at 886. The court further noted that, under Wards Cove Packing Co. v. AtonioSearch
-
s business, and that the fetal-protection policy is reasonably necessary to further that concern. Quoting Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
of Appeals here went one step further and invoked the burden-shifting framework set forth in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. AtonioSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
F.2d at 1548. This Court faced a conceptually similar situation in Phillips v. MartinSearch
-
Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
the BFOQ exception. The BFOQ defense is written narrowly, and this Court has read it narrowly. See, e.g., Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
f)(1), which tracks the BFOQ provision in Title VII, just as narrowly. See Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CriswellSearch
-
that discrimination on the basis of sex because of safety concerns is allowed only in narrow circumstances. In Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
of pregnancy on the ground that the employer's policy was necessary to ensure the safety of passengers. See Harriss v. PanSearch
-
Burwell v. EasternSearch
-
Condit v. UnitedSearch
-
National Airlines, 434 F.Supp. at 259. We considered safety to third parties in Western Airlines, Inc. v. CriswellSearch
-
California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. GuerraSearch
-
that the employer may take into account only the woman's ability to get her job done. See Becker, From Muller v. OregonSearch
-
Weeks v. SouthernSearch
-
recognize a right to recover for a prenatal injury based either on negligence or on wrongful death. See, e.g., Wolfe v. IsbellSearch
-
Simon v. MullinSearch
-
upon by HIM to support its prediction, however, are inapposite. For example, in California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. GuerraSearch
-
this Court has ruled that federal law preempts that of the States. See, e.g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
U. S. 132 , 373 U. S. 142 -143 (1963). This Court faced a similar situation in Farmers Union v. WDAYSearch
-
Id. at 360 U. S. 535 , quoting Bethlehem Steel Co. v. NewSearch
-
Arizona Governing Committee v. NorrisSearch
-
U. S. 1073 , 463 U. S. 1084 , n. 14 (1983) (opinion of MARSHALL, J.). See Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSearch
-
offspring historically has been the excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities. See, e.g., Muller v. OregonSearch
-
fertile female employees from foundry jobs involving exposure to specified concentrations of airborne lead. See Grant v. GeneralSearch
-
Id. at 1310. In Johnson Controls, Inc. v. FairSearch
-
however, suggests that sex could not constitute a BFOQ when privacy interests are implicated. See, e.g., Backus v. BaptistSearch
-
In evaluating the scope of the BFOQ defense, the proper starting point is the language of the statute. Cf. Demarest v. ManspeakerSearch
-
Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools v. MergensSearch
-
has been held not to be a defense to state tort or criminal liability. See National Solid Wastes Management Assn. v. KillianSearch
-
comment b (1979). Relying on Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. ManhartSearch
-
and safety of the sort that could form the basis for an employer's adoption of a fetal protection policy. In Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
as an exercise in 'romantic paternalism.' Cf. Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
Id. 433 U.S. at 433 U. S. 335 . We revisited the BFOQ defense in Western Air Lines, Inc. v. CriwellSearch
-
we endorsed the two-part inquiry for evaluating a BFOQ defense used by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Usery v. TamiamiSearch
-
them on an individual basis. 472 U.S. at 472 U. S. 414 (quoting Tamiami, supra, at 235 (quoting Weeks v. SouthernSearch
-
of its business. Indeed, in both cases, the Court approved the statement in Weeks v. SouthernSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial