× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
New Topic  
GrayHimakar GrayHimakar
wrote...
Posts: 669
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago

Some jobs involve exposure to very hazardous materials, such as lead and other toxic
  materials. Could a company appropriately prohibit women from holding such jobs, on the
  grounds that the toxic environment might harm fetuses of pregnant women? Johnson Controls
  manufactures batteries, using lead as a primary ingredient. Known harm caused by exposure to
  lead includes harm to the fetus carried a female employee. Johnson Control began hiring
  women for work in its factories in 1977. After several workers became pregnant and had lead
  levels in their blood in excess of recommended levels, the company adopted a new policy
  prohibiting any women who were pregnant or of child-bearing age from working in areas of the
  factory where they might be exposed to lead. The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1991, struck down
  the restriction as a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, noting that men could also
  suffer from exposure to lead but were not barred from these jobs.


 
  What will be an ideal response?
Read 37 times
1 Reply

Related Topics

Replies
wrote...
6 years ago

1. Should women alone make the decision of whether to risk exposure to these dangerous
materials? Develop ethical arguments in support of permitting women alone to make this
decision. Then develop ethical arguments in support of the Johnson Control policy.
2. If a child is born with genetic damage suffered during the pregnancy of a woman working
in these risky conditions, who is ethically responsible for the damage, the woman or the
company?
3. Given that men also are at risk from lead exposure, are there other solutions to this
problem?

New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  1260 People Browsing
Related Images
  
 230
  
 301
  
 176
Your Opinion
What's your favorite funny biology word?
Votes: 328