Premium
Jobs, Gender, and Foetal Protection Policies: From Muller v. Oregon to Johnson Controls
Author(s) -
Norton Sue M.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
gender, work and organization
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.159
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1468-0432
pISSN - 0968-6673
DOI - 10.1111/j.1468-0432.1996.tb00044.x
Subject(s) - work (physics) , unborn child , liability , political science , law , nothing , perception , business , law and economics , sociology , psychology , pregnancy , engineering , philosophy , epistemology , biology , genetics , neuroscience , mechanical engineering
The issue of work place hazards that may threaten the health of an unborn child has long been problematic for women, business decision‐makers, and lawmakers. The desire to protect the developing foetus must be balanced against a woman's legal right to get and keep the job of her choice. The issue has never been easy to resolve, as this historical analysis shows. An overview of the potential effects of work place hazards on reproductive health is presented. Relevant fair employment laws are summarized, and a brief history of court cases and employer practices is provided. It is argued that ultimately, foetal protection policies had little or nothing to do with protection of foetuses. They may have had more to do with protecting the employer from potential liability and with perceptions of women's status in the work place than with protecting the next generation. Finally, suggestions for future research are presented.