Who is protected? What's wrong with exclusionary policies

Many employers have excluded women whose infertility is not medically documented from allegedly hazardous work claiming they feared if the women became pregnant, their fetuses would be harmed. In United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, the Supreme Court held in 1991 that so-called fetal protection are unlawful sex discrimination. After examining four cases challenging exclusionary policies in Britain and the United States, this article unmasks and argues against the assumptions underlying such policies. By returning to well-established sex discrimination doctrine, moving away from a male norm, and reaffirming women's right to both work and have children, the Supreme Court's decision in VA W v. Johnson Controls is an important victory. The decision should help to break down job segregation, prompt the EEOC to act, and clear the way for addressing questions of health and safety rather than equality and difference

Constitutional right · Doctrine · Norm (philosophy · Political science · Politics · Right to work · Supreme court · Victory · Work (physics · Engineering · Law · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes