JCI's fetal-protection policy was implemented only after 8 ...

[jazziefee]

JCI's fetal-protection policy was implemented only after 8 employees became pregnant, while maintaining blood lead levels exceeding the level set by the CDC as critical. Considering JCI's moral and ethical obligations to the unborn fetuses and its possible extensive liability in future law-suits, should not the BFOQ defense be available to it?

Question 2

Quick, Onyx, and Nash were deeded a piece of land as tenants in common. The deed provided that Quick owned one-half the property and Onyx and Nash owned one-quarter each. If Nash dies, the property will be owned as follows:
 a. Quick 12, Onyx 12.
  b. Quick 58, Onyx 38.
  c. Quick 13, Onyx 13, Nash's heirs 13.
  d. Quick 12, Onyx 1/4, Nash's heirs

[Madisongo23]

Answer to Question 1

JCI's concerns about the welfare of the next generation do not suffice to establish a BFOQ of female sterility. Title VII, as amended by the PDA, mandates that decisions about welfare of future children be left to the parents who conceive, bear, support, and raise them rather than to the employers who hire those parents or to the courts. Moreover, an employer's tort liability for potential fetal injuries does not require a different result. If, under general tort principles, Title VII bans sex-specific fetal-protection policies, the employer fully informs the woman of the risk, and the employer has not acted negligently, the basis for holding an employer liable seems remote at best. Thus, the Court determined that a BFOQ defense was not available to JCI.

Answer to Question 2

.D

[jazziefee]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it

[Zebsrer]

Great answer, keep it coming