Case: International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

2:84-cv-00472 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin

Filed Date: April 6, 1984

Closed Date: Jan. 19, 1994

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In April of 1984 plaintiffs filed suit against Johnson Controls Inc., their employer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as modified by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The suit concerned a 1982 policy the defendant had adopted that forbade all women, unless it was medically documented that the employee was infertile, from performing jobs that could possibly expose them to lead and cause birth defects. The plaintiffs alleged that this disparate treatment of female employees resulted in discrimination regarding hiring, pay, work conditions, seniority, layoffs, training, benefits, recruiting, demotions and advancement. It was additionally alleged that the policy discriminated against male employees who sought to be transferred or given a leave of absence when attempting to conceive but were not allowed to do so. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and damages.

On February 25, 1985 the district court (Judge Robert W. Warren) certified a class containing all past, present, and future members of the plaintiff unions who had worked, did work, or would work in the battery manufacturing division from 1982. On January 21, 1988 the court (Judge Warren) granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment holding that the plaintiffs had not shown that there was a better alternative to the policy that would protect against the serious dangers exposures to lead can cause to fetuses and thus that the policy was a business necessity.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and on September 26, 1989 the court (Judges Bauer, Cummings, Wood Jr., Cudahy, Posner, Coffey, Flaum, Easterbrook, Ripple, Manion, and Kanne) affirmed the district court seven to four. The Plaintiffs thereafter appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and were granted a writ of certiorari. Oral arguments were heard on October 10, 1990 and on March 20, 1991 the Supreme Court (Justices Blackmun, Marshall, Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, White, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and Scalia) unanimously reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that the policy in question violated Title VII since it was facially discriminatory and gender was not a bona fide occupational qualification in this case. Decisions regarding the welfare of future generations were the province of parents and so long as the defendant did not act negligently it would not be liable in tort.

The case was remanded to the district court and on January 19, 1994 the parties entered into a consent decree and settlement forbidding the discrimination in question and awarding the plaintiff class monetary damages reported to be in the high six figures.

Summary Authors

Michael Perry (9/24/2010)

People

Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Blackmun, Harry Andrew (District of Columbia)

Coffey, John Louis (Wisconsin)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Clauss, Carin Ann (Wisconsin)

Attorney for Defendant

Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Blackmun, Harry Andrew (District of Columbia)

Coffey, John Louis (Wisconsin)

Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Illinois)

Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Flaum, Joel Martin (Illinois)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Manion, Daniel Anthony (Indiana)

Marshall, Thurgood (District of Columbia)

O'Connor, Sandra Day (District of Columbia)

Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)

Rehnquist, William Hubbs (District of Columbia)

Ripple, Kenneth Francis (Indiana)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)

Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)

Warren, Robert Willis (Wisconsin)

White, Byron Raymond (District of Columbia)

Wood, Harlington Jr. (Illinois)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Berzon, Marsha Siegel (California)

Clauss, Carin Ann (Wisconsin)

Gold, Laurence E. (District of Columbia)

Horwitz, Miriam R. (Wisconsin)

Jones, Ralph (Michigan)

Rossen, Jordan (Michigan)

Attorney for Defendant

Curtis, Charles G. Jr. (Wisconsin)

Jaspan, Stanley (Wisconsin)

Maisa, Susan (Wisconsin)

Sorensen, Anita M. (Wisconsin)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

2:84-cv-00472	Docket	May 24, 1994	May 24, 1994 Docket
2:84-cv-00472	Decision and Order (Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment)	Jan. 21, 1988	Jan. 21, 1988 Order/Opinion 680 F.Supp. 309
88-01308	Opinion (Affirming the district court) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Sept. 26, 1989	Sept. 26, 1989 Order/Opinion 886 F.2d 871
89-01215	BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS Supreme Court of the United States	June 1, 1990	June 1, 1990 Pleading / Motion / Brief
89-01215	BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT Supreme Court of the United States	July 19, 1990	July 19, 1990 Pleading / Motion / Brief
89-01215	REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONERS Supreme Court of the United States	Aug. 22, 1990	Aug. 22, 1990 Pleading / Motion / Brief
89-01215	Oral Argument Supreme Court of the United States	Oct. 10, 1990	Oct. 10, 1990 Transcript 1990 WL 601346
89-01215	Opinion (U.S. Supreme Court, Reversing the Seventh Circuit and remanding for further proceedings) Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States	March 20, 1991	March 20, 1991 Order/Opinion 499 U.S. 187

show / hide documents

Resources

Resources related to this case
Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW Oyez Project	Johnson Controls, Inc. ("Johnson") manufactures batteries whose assembly process entails exposure to high levels of lead. After discovering that eight of its female employees became pregnant while ma…	March 20, 1991	March 20, 1991 https://www.oyez.org/...

show / hide resources

Docket

Last updated March 24, 2025, 8:15 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
72	Feb. 10, 1992	HEARING MINUTES(RWW): Conference Call. Status Hearing set 03/25/92 at 9:45. (wied, ) Modified on 03/24/1992 (Entered: 02/11/1992)	PACER
73	March 25, 1992	HEARING MINUTES: ; conf call held 3/25/92 ; conf call set 5/29/92 9:30 (wied, ) (Entered: 03/27/1992)	PACER
75	May 29, 1992	HEARING MINUTES(RWW): Second Conference Call set 08/12/92 at 9:15am; Conference Call hearing held 5/29/92 . (wied, ) (Entered: 06/04/1992)	PACER
76	Aug. 12, 1992	HEARING MINUTES(RWW): Conference Call held. Status hearing set 11/02/92 at 9:30am . (wied, ) (Entered: 08/14/1992)	PACER
77	Aug. 12, 1992	LETTER(RWW): Results of Conference Call held 08/12/92. (wied, ) (Entered: 08/14/1992)	PACER
78	Nov. 30, 1992	HEARING MINUTES(RWW): Status hearing held; Final Status Conference Call set 01/06/93 at 9:00am . (wied, ) (Entered: 12/02/1992)	PACER
79	Feb. 12, 1993	HEARING MINUTES(RWW): Status hearing set 04/23/93 at 9:00am . (wied, ) (Entered: 02/16/1993)	PACER
80	April 23, 1993	HEARING MINUTES(RWW): Status hearing held 4/23/93 . Parties to submit status report by 06/30/93. (wied, )	PACER
81	Oct. 1, 1993	STIPULATION of Settlement and order of Provisional Entry of Consent Decree with PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE. (wied, ) (Entered: 10/06/1993)	PACER
82	Oct. 18, 1993	ORDER by Senior Judge Robert W. Warren: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulation and Order of 10/01/93 be AMENDED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in light of these changes, to allow the parties time to comply with the terms thereof, and without objection, the Stipulation and Order of 10/01/93 be further AMENDED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consent Decree of 10/01/93 be VACATED, and the proposed Consent Decree be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the Fairness Hearing. (cc: all counsel) (wied, ) (Entered: 10/19/1993)	PACER
83	Oct. 26, 1993	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action by defendant Johnson Controls Inc. (wied, ) (Entered: 10/27/1993)	PACER
84	Dec. 20, 1993	LETTER from plaintiff objecting to the proposed settlement (ers, ) (Entered: 12/21/1993)	PACER
85	Dec. 23, 1993	LETTER from Darlene Barkley, a class member in this case objecting to the settlement. (ers, ) (Entered: 12/28/1993)	PACER
86	Jan. 14, 1994	AFFIDAVIT/VERIFICATION of Stanley S. Jaspan in support of proposed Consent Decree. (vlh, ) (Entered: 01/19/1994)	PACER
87	Jan. 14, 1994	BRIEF by defendant Johnson Controls Inc in support of proposed Consent Decree. (vlh, ) (Entered: 01/19/1994)	PACER
88	Jan. 18, 1994	CERTIFICATE of service by defendant Johnson Controls Inc (vlh, ) (Entered: 01/19/1994)	PACER
89	Jan. 18, 1994	HEARING MINUTES(RWW): Court finds consent decree reasonable, fair and adequate both (a) substantively, and (b) as to how it was negotiated, and thereby approves of the consent decree. Judgment shall be entered. (wied, ) (Entered: 01/20/1994)	PACER
90	Jan. 18, 1994	CONSENT DECREE filed. (cc: all counsel) (wied, ) (Entered: 01/20/1994)	PACER
91	Jan. 18, 1994	BRIEF by plaintiff UAW in support of entry of consent decree. (wied, ) (Entered: 01/20/1994)	PACER
92	Jan. 19, 1994	JUDGMENT by Deputy Clerk and APPROVED by U.S. District Judge that IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the complaint is dismissed in accordance with the terms of the Consent Decree entered January 18, 1994. Terminating case . (cc: all counsel) (wied, ) (Entered: 01/20/1994)	PACER
93	May 24, 1994	AFFIDAVIT of Ralph O. Jones; Johnson Controls, Inc. has fully complied with its obligations to make the payments of back pay, interest, attorneys' fees and costs described in Sections VII.B. through VIII.E. of the Consent Decree. (wied, )	PACER

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

Wisconsin

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 6, 1984

Closing Date: Jan. 19, 1994

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All past, present, and future production and maintenance employees in bargaining units represented by Intl. Union, United Automobile, Aero and Agri Implement Workers of America, who were affected by the defendant's Fetal Protection Policy.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Private Entity/Person

Johnson Controls, Inc.

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Other Dockets:

Eastern District of Wisconsin 2:84-cv-00472

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 88-01308

Supreme Court of the United States 89-1215

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Trial Court Docket

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Damages

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Amount Defendant Pays: High six figures

Issues

Discrimination Area:

Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc.)

Demotion

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Discrimination Basis:

Pregnancy discrimination

Sex discrimination

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Male

Recommended Citation

Case Summary of International Union v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/10665/ (last updated 9/24/2010).