In the 1990 case of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), et al. v. Johnson Controls, Inc., the U.S Supreme Court ruled that employers cannot exclude women from jobs where exposure to certain chemicals could potentially harm their fetuses. The court held that such policies were discriminatory and violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act because they treated fertile women differently than fertile men. Johnson Controls had barred all "fertile" women from positions involving lead exposure arguing it was a "bona fide occupational qualification". However, this unanimous decision affirmed that decisions about potential risks to children are generally left up to parents not employers.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, et al. v. Johnson Controls Inc., Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority misinterpreted Title VII's "bona fide occupational qualification" (BFOQ) exception. They contended that Johnson Controls' policy barring women who could become pregnant from certain jobs was indeed a BFOQ because it was based on realistic concerns about fetal safety in lead-exposed environments. The dissenters believed this should be considered as part of business necessity defense under Title VII rather than being automatically deemed sex discrimination. Furthermore, they criticized the majority’s view that employers must disregard biological differences between sexes when making employment decisions; arguing instead for an interpretation allowing consideration of such differences where relevant to job performance or worker safety.