# Amicus Curiae Brief — International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement v. Johnson Controls, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0705%3A18 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1991 - **Citation:** 499 U.S. 187 ## Text IN THE > CLERK Supreme Court of the Huited | . OCTOBER TERM, 1989 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES, THE NOW LEGAL DEFYNSE AND EDUCATION FUND, NATIONAL WU™EN’S LAW CENTER, AND WOMEN’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS SUSAN DELLER Ross * NAOMI R. CAHN ROBIN MARKUSH GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW | CENTER SEX DISCRIMINATION « CLINIC 600 New Jersey Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 662-9640 * Counsel of Record for Amici Curiae WILSON - Epes PRINTING Co., INC. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 ® aE: «0 DECT AVAIL ADIC CADV TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE AND PARTY SUP- NN ciiadolitandatiesistetidebsseiecininriiaciecianstecneeviaptesisiedttiecnnenionstore SE Aecernatdiscictnctisbensbentabiciiietebitsiennaprastencvasqnnentgvennvenee I. IN ENACTING THE PREGNANCY DISCRIM- II. INATION ACT, CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE A POLICY OF EXCLUDING ALL FER- TILE WOMEN FROM EMPLOYMENT BASED ON THEIR PREGNANCY OR POTENTIAL PREGNANCY A FACIAL VIOLATION OF SECTION 703(a) OF TITLE VII ........................ A. Congress Explicitly Considered the PDA’s Impact on the Johnson Controls-Type Policy, Understood That the PDA’s Language Pro- hibited Sxch Policies, and Enacted the PDA Without Change and With Full Understand- RE EE a B. Congress Made Clear That the PDA’s Pro- hibition on Pregnancy-Based Discrimination Had the Broadest Possible Application to All Pregnancy-Related Policies, Rendering Them Per Se Violations of Section 703(a) of Title 5 IRC ECE AERIS We BSS) 3 UP De oe BECAUSE THE PDA’S SECOND CLAUSE AND ITS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY MADE CLEAR THAT THE PREGNANT WOMAN’S OWN JOB PERFORMANCE ABILITIES, AND NOT FETAL HEALTH CONCERNS, ARE THE ONLY RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR ESTABLISHING A BFOQ, JOHNSON CON- TROLS HAS NO BFOQ DEFENSE TO ITS FACIAL VIOLATION OF SECTION 703 (a) _.. Page 13 20 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued III. TO PROVIDE FETAL PROTECTION CON- SISTENT WITH TITLE VII, JOHNSON CON- TROLS MUST ADOPT A SEX-NEUTRAL POLICY THAT APPLIES EQUALLY TO ITS MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS; SUCH A POLICY WILL ALLOW THE EMPLOYER BOTH TO COMPLY WITH TITLE VII AND TO MAKE THE WORKPLACE SAFé FOR THE CHILDREN OF BOTH MALE AND FEMALE ig en eS CBTUE ATI oaccceccseecneesscconresseneneienesenssiaae Page iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Arizona Governing Committee v. Norris, 463 U.S. NES. a ae 28 General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 LL E LE L C 17 International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, 886 F.2d 871 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. granted, 110 S.Ct. 1522 (1990) (No. 89-1215) ................ 13, 20, 28, 29 Johnson Controls, Inc. v. California Fair Empl. and Housing Committee, 218 Cal. App. 3d 517, 267 Cal. Rptr. 158 (1990), petition for rev. de- nied, No. S014910 (Cal. May 17, 1990) (LEXIS, States library, Cal. file) 2000200000. 7,27 Los Angeles Department of Water & Power v. Man- hart, 435 U.S. 702 (1978) 2.000.000.0000. 28 Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) .........000000.... 14 Statutes : Pregnarcy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076 (1978) (codified in part at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (1982)) 2.00000. passim Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1982) 22... passim Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601, i eseseasneenece 11 Legislative History : Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy, 1977: Hearings on S. 995 Before the Subcomm. on Labor of the Senate Comm. on Human Resources, 95th Cong., Ist Sess. (1977) _...00........ooocccccceeecceeenn. passim Legislation to Prohibit Sex Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy: Hearings on H.R. 5055 . 4 H.R. 6075 Before the Subcomm. on Employment Opportunities of the House Comm. on Education and Labor, Part 1, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) passim Legislative History of the Pregnacy Discrimina- tion Act of 1978, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. i csucubeseouonccncoee passim iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Regulations: OSHA, Final Standard for Occupational Exposure to Lead, 43 Fed. Reg. 52,951 (1978) Miscellaneous: Ashford, New Scientific Evidence and Public Health Imperat: ‘es, 316 N. Engl. J. Med. 1084. Becker, From Muller v. Oregon to Fetal Vulner- ability Policies, 58 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1219 (1986) .. Williams, Firing the Woman to Protect the Fetus: Reconciliation of Fetal Protection with Employ- ment Opportunity Goals under Title VII, 69 Geo. L.J. 641 (1981) Se reer eeeereseseeseseseseeesssesesececseoos Page 26 27 BRIEF FOR EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES, ET AL., AS AMICI CURIAE This brief amici curiae is filed with the consent of the parties as provided for in this Court’s Rules. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE AND PARTY SUPPORTED The statement of the Interest of Amici is included in the Appendix. This brief supports the UAW, et ai., Petitioners. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Seventh Circuit erred in omitting any discussion of the legislative history of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which makes clear that the PDA was in- tended to prohibit the Johnson Controls’ policy of exclud- ing all fertile women from employment based on their pregnancy or potential pregnancy. In enacting the PDA, Congress was fully informed that its language would prohibit a policy of “refusing certain work to a pregnant employee where such work posed a threat to the health of either the mother-to-be or her unborn child,” and enacted the PDA without change and with full understanding of its reach. The Chamber of Commerce informed both the House and Senate that the second clause of the PDA, requiring that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the’ same for all employment-related purposes . . . as ather persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inabiligy to work,” would prohibit such policies. Senator Hatch explored the topic with Dr. Andre Hellegers, who urged that “if we are talking about untoward effects of industrial processes on human procreation, we have to look at the effects on testicles, the effects on cvarits and the effects on fetuses, all three” in order to protect the children of both male and female workers. Dr. Hellegers also discussed the harm that could flow from denying income to pregnant workers; he documented an increase in premature births, with accompanying risks of mental retardation and learning disabilities, that was associated with a decrease in the pregnant worker’s income. Dr. Hellegers’ views prevailed, for while Senator Hatch was the leading proponent of narrowing amendments to the PDA, he did not attempt to accommodate the Chamber cf Commerce's “fetal protection” concerns. In defining the term “sex” as it appears in Title VII to include “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical con- ditions,” Congress chose the broadest possible definition of pregnancy-related discrimination. Since the ability to become pregnant and bear children is a “medical condi- tion” which is “related” to pregnancy and childbirth, the PD. explicitly prohibits the Johnson Controls’ ban on all women who are either pregnant or who might become pregnant. The legislative history of the PDA, including the witnesses who testified, the Committee Reports, and the floor debate, overwhelmingly confirm that view. They all documented the source of pregnancy discrimination as including employers’ attitudes about women’s capacity for childbearing and their potential pregnancics, which led to discrimination against both pregnant women and women who might become pregnant. They made clear that refusing to hire women for such reasons would be illegal. Thus, in refusing to employ any woman who is pregnant or who might become pregnant, Johnson Con- trols engaged in a per se violation of Section 703(a) of Title VIS, as amended by the PDA definition, which the Seventh Circuit erred in refusing even to discuss or acknowledge. The Seventh Circuit also erred in ruling that fetal health concerns can be taken into account in deciding whether Johnson Controls established a Section 703(e) bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) defense to its facial violation of Title VII. The second clause of the PDA applies equally to the Section 703(e) defense, and requires that the BFOQ decision be grounded solely in the job performance criterion of an employee’s “ability or inability to work,” as the Chamber of Commerce un- derstood. The testimony, Committee Reports, and floor debate all make clear that Congress intended that under the PDA, in Representative Hawkins’ words, “if an em- ployer permits other employees to continue working un- less their doctors regard them as physically unable to work, it may not force pregnant women off the job, as many employers have done in the past, while they are perfectly able to perform their jobs.” As a matter of law, therefore, under the PDA there can be no BFOQ defense based on fetal heath concerns. Instead, the sole criterion for establishing a BFOQ is the employee’s job performance abilities. Title VII, as amended by the PDA, requires that em- ployers adopt sex-neutral policies applying equally to both male and female workers; such policies will enable the employer genuinely concerned with fetal health to make the workplace safe for the children of both male and female employees. Such policies will also avoid the scientific irrationality of ignoring the effects of male workers’ exposure to lead. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has found “conclusive evidence of miscarriage and stillbirth in women . . . whose husbands were exposed’”’ to lead. These problems can arise through the effect of lead on sperm and through male workers failing to exercise proper hygiene, thus carrying home lead on their bodies and clothes and affecting the fetus of their wives through intimate contact. Stereotypes make it easy for employers to ignore the role of men in the area of fetal health and to ignore the role of women in assuring adequate family income. These were precisely the kinds of stereotypes that the Pregnancy Discrimi- nation Act was designed to eradicate from the workplace. a eu 4 ARGUMENT ‘TING THE PREGNANCY DISCRIMINA- T, CONGRESS INTENDED TO MAKE A OF EXCLUDING ALL FERTILE WOMEN MPLOYMENT BASED ON THEIR PREG- NANCY OR POTENTIAL PREGNANCY A FACIAL VIOLATION OF SECTION 703(a) OF TITLE VII. The Seventh Circuit’s decision upholding the Johnson Controls’ policy of refusing employment to all pregnant women and all women capable of becoming pregnant scarcely mentioned the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Even more conspicuously absent from the Seventh Circuit’s decision is any analysis of the legislative history of the PDA. That legislative history reveals, however, as we show below, that Congress intended to prohibit precisely the employer ban on fertile women workers that the lower court upheld. A. Congress Explicitly Considered the PDA’s Impact on the Johnson Controls-Type Policy, Understood That the PDA’s Language Prohibited Such Policies, and Enacted the PDA Without Change and With Full Understanding of Its Reach. On the very first day of testimony (April 6, 1977) on the proposed PDA, the first opponent of the legislation to speak highlighted as his first reason for opposing the bill its effect on “Occupational Health.” In both his oral and written statements, the Chamber of Commerce rep- resentative explained to Chairman Hawkins and the other Members of the House Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities: [The bill] requires that “women affected by preg- nancy, childbirth or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment related pur- poses.” This would prevent an employer from refus- ing certain work to a pregnant employee where such 1 Pub. L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076 (1978) (codified in part at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (1982) ) [hereinafter cited as the PDA]. 5 work posed a threat to the health of either the mother- to-be or her unborn child. Even though the prospective mother might argua- bly be considered to have assumed the risk by asking to work in such circumstances, injury to the fetus might give the child a cause of action against the employer who, under the bill, would be powerless to deny the work to the child’s mother during the preg- nancy. Legislation to Prohibit Sex Discrimination on the Basis of Pregnancy: Hearings on H.R. 5055 and H.R. 6075 Before the Subcomm. on Employment Opportunities of the House Comm. on Education and Labor, Part 1, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 84, 88 (1977) [hereinafter cited as House Hearings| (statement and testimony of C. Brock- well Heylin, labor relations attorney, Chamber of Com- merce of the U.S.). The Chamber submitted a virtually identical statement to the Senate Subcommittee on Labor the next month. Discrimination on the Basis of Preg- nancy, 1977: Hearings on S. 995 Before the Subcomm. on Labor of the Senate Com™. on Human Resources, 95th Cong., Ist Sess. 482 (1977) [hereinafter cited as Senate Hearings] (statement of C. Brockwell Heylin). Thus, from the opening days of the Congressional hearings, Congress was on notice that the largest U.S. association of business and professional organizations, id., believed that the second clause of the PDA® prohibited a policy virtually identical to the Johnson Controls’ policy, and that the Chamber opposed the bill for that reason. Senator Hatch, who later became the leading (though unsuccessful) proponent of amendments to narrow the scope and coverage of the PDA, quickly pursued the Chamber’s points. On the very first day of the Senate hearings (Apri! 26, 1977), Senator Hatch explor.d them 2 The second clause provides that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work. .. .” 42 U.>.C. § 2000e (k) (1982). * \ i 6 with Dr. Andre Hellegers a Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Director of the Joseph and Rose Ken- nedy Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction and Bioethics at Georgetown University. Senator Hatch’s questions were based on th Chamber’s points about the PDA’s second clause and occupational health: - ‘ ‘ - ‘ *, ~*~ . Senator Hatch: What problems, if any, do you fore- see tn treating preqnant women the same as other emp oyces Xho haye disabilities that continue to work’? Dr. Hellegers: P can see none. I don’t see any. I think it is just a question of having a physical exam. Senator Hatch: Do yeu think there would arise a whole slew of OSHA problems, occupational safety and health problems as a result of pregnant women” Dr. Hellegers: Let me put it this way: I have long been an advocate for a massive increase in research to deal with the effects of poisons, chemicals, physical or other agents on pregnant working women. How- ever, two other things: Those agents are just as likely to affect the ovaries of nonpregnant women and there are in fact today companies that will not hire women on that specific basis. But you never dream of thinking that the same agents may also affect the testicles of mer. So if we are talking about untoward effects of industrial proc- esses on human procreation, we have to look at the effects on testicles, the effects on ovaries and the effects on fetuses, all three, and we aren’t doing much of that. Senate Hearings at 67 (emphasis added). With this vivid and cogent remark, Dr. Hellegers struck at the heart of the stereotype underlying the John- son Controls-type policy: that male participation in the reproductive cycle is irrelevant to fetal harm and may therefore be disregarded.*. What Dr. Hellegers recom- “See Section Ill infra for a discussion of the scientific data showing that the sperm of male workers can be affected by their exposure to lead, thus leading to fetal harm, and for a discussion of how male workers who fail to take the appropriate hygiene meas- 7 mended instead was to examine fetal harm caused by both male and female worker exposure to chemicals and other agents, so that the children of both men and women employees could be protected. Shortly before this exchange, Dr. Hellegers’ testimony dealt with another stereotype underlying the Johnson Controls-type policy: that the denial of jobs to preg- nant women will net harm developing fetuses. The mother’s income is important to fetal well-being, he ex- plained: I am secondly in favor of this bill on the grounds of social good, and I have attached to my testimony a table on a study that we did in the Kennedy Institute which relates income to infant outcome. It is ex- tremely clear that as income increases prematurity decreases, in some instances by almost 50 percent. What this means, in other words, is that the penalty of this kind of policy {loss of income during pregnancy] is paid not just by the woman, it is paid by the unborn child. One lawyer, incidentally, in one ures after exposure to lead on the job can bring home lead on their bodies and clothes and affect the developing fetus of their wives through intimate contact. The Johnson Controls-type stereotype indoubtedly arises because of the centrality and strength of the mother-/) fant relationship in our culture, leading employers simply to forget about fathers. This is especially so during pregnancy, chen the fetus is enclosed in the woman’s body, and the father’s nneetion to the fetus has no such visible and obvious manifesta- tion. The tendency to ignore the father’s role in causing fetal harm was noted by the California Court of Appeal in discussing one of Johnson Controls’ expert witnesses: “Dr. Noren cavalierly char- acterized the situation this wav: ‘If vou don't look for 2 problem, vou don't find it.” Johnson Controls, Inc. +. California Fair Empl. and Hous. Comm., 218 Cal. App. 3d 517, ——-: 267 Cal. Rptr. 158, 168 (1990), petition tor rer. denied, No. $014910 (Cal. May 17, 1990) (LEXIS, States library, Cal. file). Dr. Noren took this posi- tion to explain his belief that there was a lack of recent studies on the “effect of lead in male workers’ reproduction systems,” despite his recognition that “old studies did link lead exposure in male lead workers with a high death rate among offspring in the first years of life.” Id. (emphasis added). 8 case afterwards said the women can always get aborted. | happen te be opposed to abortion. All I can say is that this is a policy which harms not only women but harms the unborn, either whether you abort wr you do noi abort, and markedly increases the incidence of prematurity. That goes to the issue of cost because what it really comes down to is that you pay a penalty either before birth by keeping income up at that time, or you pay a penalty after birth in terms of facilities for the mentally retarded. learning disabilities on which millions and millions are spent in this country. Senate Hearings at 64. His written statement amplified on these coneerns: The National Institute for Child Health and Human Development has estimated that prematurity costs the nation $1 billion per year. A task force report to Secretary of H.E.W. Califano puts a price tag of $130 million on each percentage point of prematurity in the nation. Those costs refer to the cost of care in hospital nurseries only. They do not reflect the well known relationship between premature births and subsequent central nervous system disabilities, such as mental retardation and learning defects. Its cost is immense. ... Ona national scale one does well to remember that today 40% of all pregnant women work and large numbers of them are heads of households or have unemployed husbands so their loss of income affects their own health and their unborn children’s, at great cost to the nation. ... Senate Hearings at 75-76 (emphasis added). Dr. Helle- gers made the identical point in the hearings before the House Employment Opportunities Subcommittee. House Hearings at 54, 58-59." *The American Nurses’ Association also documented the con- nection between loss of income and fetal health, and expanded on the fetal and neo-natal harms caused by premature birth. “Low birth weight [due to premature birth] is associated with almost half of all infant deaths and substantially increases the likelihood of birth defects,” the Association informed the Senate. Senate 9 On the same day that Senator Hatch explored the OSHA problems with Dr. Hellegers, he explored several of the concerns that led him later to offer his narrowing amendments. For example, he asked a panel of govern- ment witnesses (from the EEOC, the Justice Depart- ment’s Civil Rights Division, and the Labor Department) a series of questions about whether the bill should con- tain limitations on the “length of time” during which pregnant workers could receive disability insurance cov- erage—e.g., of “3 weeks for pregnancy disability.” Sen- ate Hearings at 39-45. Later that day, the Senator returned to his concerns about limiting the “length of time” for receipt of dis- ability insurance benefits and about possible OSHA prob- lems in a discussion with Clarence Mitchell, the Chair- man of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. He explained to Mr. Mitchell that maybe there should be some limitations so people know where they stand and that does literally bother me. There are many problems that arise in this. It is a complicated area. If we grant this particular bill we may have OSHA preblems that we hadn't thought of. and maybe we should. These are questions I legitimately have and - want to have answers. But since the vast majority of insurers in America put a set time because of* the overwhelming mass of statistical evidence showing that pregnancy is not really a disability but a natural occurrence in the overwhelming majority of cases that perhaps there might need to be a limitation rather than an unlimited generalized bill. Senate Hearings at 109-10. Significantly, during the floor debate, Senator Hatch did indeed offer an amendment to cap disability benefits at 6 weeks, and thereby attempted to limit the “length Hearings at 166, 470. Some of the defects listed were “mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and other neurological disorders.” /d. at 471. Others included “IQ deficiency and antisocial behavior.” /d. 10 of time’ for which women workers who had had babies could receive disability benefits. He also proposed other amendments to cover other concerns he had raised from the first day of the Senate hearings.® Senator Hatch did not, however, propose an amendment to allow em- ployers with occupational health concerns to treat fertile women differently than fertile men, by excluding the women from employment. He was apparently persuaded by Dr. Helleger’s point that it is important to examite the effects of toxic agents on men as well as women, in order to protect male workers’ children and not just those of female workers. He may also have been per- suaded by Dr. Hellegers’ eloquent statement about low income among pregnant women workers causing pre- mature birth, with its attendant risks of learning dis- abilities and mental retardation. Whatever his motiva- tion, however, the significant fact remains that he was clearly informed about the occupational health issue the Chamber of Commerce so prominently raised, and knew which clause of the PDA the Chamber was concerned about. Yet he chose not even to suggest amending the PDA to accommodate the Chamber’s concern, despite his role as the leading proponent of narrowing amendments to the PDA. In sum, despite the Chamber of Commerce’s clear warn- ing that the second clause of the PDA “would prevent * His proposed amendments included: 1) the six-week limitation on pregnancy disability benefits discussed supra (Amendment No. 830) (rejected), Senate Comm. on Labor and Human Resources, Legislative History of the Preanancy Discrimination Act of 1978, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 56, 96-111, 122-24 (Comm. Print 1979) [here- inafter cited as Leg. Hist.}; 2) an amendment to clarify that a requirement of covering pregnancy in insurance plans did not apply to pre-existing cor iitions (Amendment No. 831) (withdrawn), id. at 57, 82-84; and 3) an extension of the date of compliance ( Amend- ment No, 832) (adpoted), id. at 58, 84-86. Senator Hatch also dis- cussed the enactment of a special pregnancy bill instead of an amendment to the Civil Rights Act, although this suggestion never materialized into a proposed amendment. See Senate Hearings at 44. 11 an employer from refusing certain work to a pregnant employee where such work posed a threat to the health of either the mother-to-be or her unborn child,” and despite the fact that a highly visible Senator who offered other narrowing amendments publicly examined the Chamber’s concerns, Congress left intact its requirement that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medi- cal conditions shall be treated the same for ail employ- ment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.’’ And in the entire legislative history of the PDA, no person or organization ever suggested to Congress that a different interpretation of this statutory language than the one offered by the Chamber applied to the occupational health problem. Nor did a single Member of Congress or a single Committee Report indicate any disagreement with the Chamber’s interpretation. Moreover, two important Senators were clearly in- fluenced by Dr. Hellegers’ approach of being concerned about the health of all children.* Senator Williams, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Human Resources, had been present during Dr. Hellegers’ Committee testi- mony and during Senator Hatch’s questioning of Dr. Hellegers. When the Senator presented the bill to the full Senate in his role as floor manager, he pointedly focused on and used Dr. Hellegers’ testimony at the very beginning of the PDA floor debate: Finally, Mr. President, I want to emphasize testi- mony received by the Committee from the American ® Indeed, fetal health had been the subject of concern in the Congressional session immediately preceding the one in which the PDA was introduced. The Toxic Substances Contre) Act, 15 U.S.C. £§ 2601. 2608 (1988), enacted on October 11, 1976 ) is a non-profit civil rights organization that per- forms a broad range of legal and educational services nationally in support of women’s efforts to eliminate sex- sed discrimination and secure equal rights. NOW DEF was founded in 1970 by leaders of the National tapanization for Women, a membership organization of » 890.000 women and men in more than 750 chapters iwhout the country. A major goal of NOW LDEF is the elimination of barriers that deny women economic 2a opportunities. Discrimination against women based upon reproductive capacity, as a major barrier to women’s full and equal employment, is a central concern to NOW LDEF. The National Women’s Law Center is a non-profit or- ganization founded in 1972 as the Women’s Rights Proj- ect of the Center for Law and Social Policy, and it be- came an independent organization in 1981. The Center first became actively involved in the issue of pregnancy discrimination in 1973, through its representation of amici curiae in support of the plaintiffs at the trial level in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976). The Center continued its participation in this landmark case in the Court of Appea!s and Supreme Court. Fur- ther, once Gilbert was decided, the Center became active first in developing and then participating in the Cam- paign to End Discrimination Against Pregnant Workers. In this capacity, the Center closely monitored the progress of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and provided tech- nical assistance in support of its passage. Since that time, the Center has participated in numerous cases ad- dressing problem: of pregnancy discrimination, counseled victims of such discrimination, and served as a legal re- source to combat pregnancy discrimination in many forums. - The Women’s Legal Defense Fund ‘(WLDF) is a non- profit, membership organization founded in 1971 to ad- vance women’s equality. WLDF combats gender-based discrimination in employment through litigation of sig- nificant cases, the operation of a counseling program, and agency advocacy before the EEOC and other agen- cies charged with enforcement of the equal opportunity laws. WLDF has had a particular interest in the issue of pregnancy-based employment discrimination because of its theoretical and practical centrality to equal em- ployment opportunity for women. Thus, after this Court’s decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, supra, WLDF played a leading role in the coalition formed to enact the 3a Pregnancy Discrimination Act. After the PDA’s enact- ment, WLDF advocated issuance of strong guidelines in- terpreting the PDA by the Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission, and instituted a Pregnancy Rights Monitoring Project to educate the public about their rights under the PDA and to monitor government agen- cies’ enforcement of that Act; WLDF continues this role to the present day. In 1979, WLDF began to advocate that the EEOC issue guidelines on the application of Title VII, as amended by the PDA, concerning employ- ers’ exclusion of fertile women based on alleged occupa- tional reproductive health hazards, and founded a Coali- tion on the Reproductive Rights of Workers to promote publie policy that ensures workplaces safe for all work- ers, including pregnant women. Again, WLDF has con- tinued to comment on and monitor the development of EEOC policy regarding reproductive health hazards. WLDF has also participated as amicus in the two cases that have come before this Court on the proper interpre- tation of the PDA: Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (1983), and California Federal Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987). Finally, WLDF has led the efforts to secure passage of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act in Congress and of similar laws in the states. The American Civil Liberties Union, which was also 2 major participant in the Campaign to End Discrim- ination Against Pregnant Workers, fully endorses this amici curiae brief, but is submitting a separate brief on behalf of itself and other amici. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0705%3A18. Public record. Not legal advice.