8/10/2019 MG 600 Assignment #10

1/2

Zoe Atlas

MG 600

11/4/13

Case 9.4: Protecting the Unborn at Work Discussion Questions

1. There is no doubt that Johnson Controls fetal protection policy discriminatesagainst women. Discrimination, by definition, is the unjust or prejudicial

treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race,

age, or sex. This policy specifically is prejudicial treatment of only women (alsoknown as on the grounds of sex). Therefore, it is clear that this policy

discriminates against women. If the policy equally disallowed women and men if

they werent barren or unable to produce, then the policy would not be

discriminatory. However, this is not the case here. I am conflicted about whetherpregnant women have a moral right to work in an environment that is know to

affect fetuses. On one hand, if women are presented with all the available

information, they should be able to make their own decision and decide what theywant to do. On the other hand, I think companies do have a right to limit the

known health risks to their employees. People would most likely be angry with

the company if they allowed those women to work in the factory and then their

fetuses suffered health problems, which was known to directly correlate with thelead in the factory.

2. This would definitely make a difference, although, it may still be problematic. If itwas known that the lead in the factory only affected womens reproductive

system, the company would have a much stronger case for their policy. If this

were true, the company could demonstrate that in creating this policy, they were

actually trying to protect women as opposed to simply discriminating againstwomen only. I dont know whether this would be sufficient to say that the policy

is not discriminatory, but I do think it would hamper the womens case.

3. I think there can be a nondiscriminatory fetal protection policy. I think it would

have to be that both women and men cannot work in this factory if there are able

to produce children. This would create a difficulty for the company to find enoughpeople to employ. Therefore, I think a way to have a nondiscriminatory fetal

protection policy would be to have the employees sign an agreement or a contract

stating that they are not trying to produce children for whatever reason right now

and if that ever changes, the employee must notify the company. I dont think abright line barren or cannot produce rule is necessary. I do agree with Justice

White that companies have an obligation to avoid causing injury to fetuses,

although I dont know if I agree with the extreme nature of the companys rule. I

think the company should definitely inform all employees and potentialemployees of all the actual andpotential dangers. However, I dont know how to

create an effective policy with causing discrimination or influencing a persons

right to bear children. Therefore, a policy creates some difficulty, but I dont thinkits necessarily a crazy idea.

8/10/2019 MG 600 Assignment #10

2/2

4. This is not an easy question to answer. I do not think there is an easy yes or not

answer here. I do think that such a policy would infringe upon an employeesfreedom of choice, be an invasion of privacy and be unfair to employees who

have no plans to have children. A person should be able to choose what they want

to do with their bodies. A person shouldnt have anyone else invading into theirlives, especially into something incredibly personal and private. In addition, thispolicy would be unfairly discriminatory to women who have chose not to have

children, as the lead wouldnt effect them, but they still have to comply with the

policy. On the other hand, I dont think it is crazy for the company to want toprotect their employees, especially from something that could have a life-long

effect on the person. Therefore,

5. From an egoistic perspective, the policy is just because it promotes the companysgoals of protecting the employees from harm and avoiding any lawsuits that could

arise from allowing these people to work at the factory. From a utilitarianism

perspective, which states that the morally right action is the one that provides themost happiness for all those affected, I am not sure whether the policy is just. I

have not sure whether having or not having the policy provides the most

happiness for all affected. From a Kantian perspective, the policy may be just

depending on the point of the company in developing the policy. Kant held thatonly when we act from duty does our action have moral worth. Therefore, if the

company created the policy out of a duty to protect womens reproductive

systems and these unborn fetuses, then the policy is just. However, if the companycreated the policy to simply avoid lawsuits, then it is not just.

6. Once again, there is no easy answer. On the one hand, people should have the

choice to do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they have all thepertinent information. However, on the other hand, these regulations or policies

are put into place for a reason and the company or the government has a right to

protect their employees from health risks. There would no doubt be somebacklash if a company or the government allowed these employees to work

despite these known hazards. Therefore, there is a real tension here between the

company or the government and the employees.

7. I would agree that the real issue here is to remove the toxins from the workplace. I

think that this is the main issue and this is the issue that we should be focusing on.

If the toxins could be removed from the workplace than we wouldnt have to beconsidering any fetal protection policies or any possible discriminatory actions. I

dont know enough about the toxins or the product to know if it is a realistic goal.

I think the company should put as much resources into this as possible and try as

hard as possible to achieve the goal.