See generally H.R. Rep. No. 1341, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (July 14, 1976).
2.
See, e.g., Note, Sexual Equality Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Columbia Law Review83(3): 690–726 (April 1983); Note, The Pregnant Employee's Appearance as a BFOQ Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 14(1): 195–227 (Fall 1982); WaldS. E.Judicial Construction of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Amendment to Title VII: Ignoring Congressional intent, American University Law Review31 (3): 591–612 (Spring 1982); HowardL. G., Hazardous Substances in the Workplace: Implications for the Employment Rights of Women, University of Pennsylvania Law Review129(4): 798–855 (April 1981); AndradeV. M., The Toxic Workplace: Title VU Protection for the Potentially Pregnant Person, Harvard Women's Law Journal4(1): 71–103 (Spring 1981); WilliamsW. W., Firing the Woman to Protect the Fetus: The Reconciliation of Federal Protection with Employment Opportunity Goals Under Title VII, Georgetown Law Journal69(3): 641–704 (February 1981): NorthsteinG. Z.AyersJ. P., Sex-Based Considerations of Differentiation in the Workplace: Exploring the Biomedical Interface Between OSHA and Title VII, Villanova Law Review26(2): 239–321 (January 1981); FurnishH. A., Prenatal Exposure to Fetally Toxic Work Environments: The Dilemma of the 1978 Pregnancy Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Iowa Law Review66(1): 63–129 (October 1980); Note, Birth Defects Caused by Parental Exposure to Workplace Hazards: The Interface of Title VII With OSHA and Tort Law, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform12(2): 237–60 (Winter 1979); SamuelsonJ.I., Employment Rights of Women in The Toxic Workplace, California Law Review65(5): 1113–42 (September 1977).
3.
42 U.S.C. §2000 e-(k) (1976 & Supp. 1979).
4.
FurnishH. A., Prenatal Exposure to Fetally Toxic Work Environments: The Dilemma of the 1978 Pregnancy Amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Iowa Law Review66(1): 63, 77–79 (October 1980) [hereinafter referred to as Furnish].
5.
See HrickoA.. Working for Your Life: A Woman's Guide to Job Health Hazards (Labor Occupational Health Program, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.) (3rd ed.1976) at B-1 to C-40.
6.
Cristman v. American Cyanamid Company, 92 F.R.D. 441 (1981). See also WilliamsW. W., Firing the Woman to Protect the Fetus: The Reconciliation of Federal Protection with Employment Opportunity Goals Under Title VII, Georgetown Law Journal69(3): 641, 641–42 (February 1981) [hereinafter referred to as Williams].
7.
Williams, supra note 6, lists several of these cases: Benson v. Environmental Protection and Aeration Sys., Inc., No. 78-2610 (W.D. Tenn., filed Sept, 5, 1979) (welder alleged that she was turned away at assigned job site on ground that women should not be exposed to lead); EEOC v. General Motors Corp., No. 76-538-E (S.D. Md., filed Sept. 22, 1976) (non-fertile woman challenged General Motors” policy of excluding all women from jobs involving lead exposure); Read v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., No. 75-1473 (W.D. Pa., filed Nov. 13, 1975) (class challenge to St. Joe's policy of excluding fertile women from lead exposure to jobs); Toomef v. General Motors Corp., No. 76-101-C (S.D. Ind., filed Feb. 14, 1976) (applicant challenged General Motors” refusal to hire women capable of bearing children). Id., at 642 n. 11.
8.
NorthsteinG. Z.AyresJ. P., Sex-Based Considerations of Differentiation in the Workplace: Exploring the Biomedical Interface Between OSHA and Title VII, Villanova Law Review26(2): 239, 244–46 (January 1981) [hereinafter referred to as Differentiation in the Workplace]
9.
ClaxtonL. D.BarryP. Z., Chemical Mutagenesis: An Emerging Issue for Public Health, American Journal of Public Health67(11): 1037–42 (November 1977).
10.
HuntV. R., Occupational Health Problems of Pregnant Women: A Report and Recommendations for the Office of the Secretary, Health, Education and Welfare (U.S. Gov't Printing Office, Washington, D.C.) (April 30, 1975) at 43–44.
11.
Differentiation in the Workplace, supra note 8, at 244–45.
12.
Hricko supra note 5.
13.
Id. at B-6.
14.
Id. at B-8-9.
15.
SamuelsonJ. I., Employment Rights of Women in the Toxic Workplace, California Law Review65(5): 1113, 1118 n. 17 (September 1977).
16.
Williams, supra note 6, at 661 n. 130.
17.
HowardL. G., Hazardous Substances in the Workplace: Implications for the Employment Rights of Women, University of Pennsylvania Law Review129(4): 798, 806 (April 1981).
18.
42 U.S.C. §2000e-2000h (1976 & Supp. 1978).
19.
Pub. L. No. 95-555, §1, 92 Stat. 2076 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(k) (Supp. 1979)).
20.
429 U.S. 125 (1976) [hereinafter referred to as Gilbert].
21.
Id. at 138–40.
22.
434 U.S. 136 (1977).
23.
Id. at 142.
24.
42 U.S.C, §2000e-(k) (Supp. 1979).
25.
H.R. Rep. No. 95-948. 95th Cong., 2d Sess. at 7, reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 1978: 4749, 4754–55.
26.
435 U.S. 702, 716–17 (1978) [hereinafter referred to as Manhart].
27.
Id. at 715–18.
28.
See International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 355, n. 15 (1977).
29.
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329 (1977) [hereinafter referred to as Dothard].
30.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802–03 (1973).
31.
42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(e) (1) (1976 & Supp. 1979).
32.
401 U.S. 424 (1971) [hereinafter referred to as Griggs].
33.
Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971); Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co., 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971); Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969).
34.
Dotbard, supra note 29.
35.
Id. at 333.
36.
Id. at 336.
37.
458 F. Supp. 474 (E.D. Va. 1978), aff'd in part and rev'd in part per curiam, 633 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1980) (en banc), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 965 (1981) [hereinafter referred to as Burwell].
38.
458 F. Supp. at 497.
39.
633 F.2d at 366.
40.
FinnermanH. M., Title VII and Restrictions on Employment of Fertile Women, Labor Law Journal. 31(4): 223, 227–28 (April 1980).
41.
See, e.g., Condit v. United Air Lines, Inc., 558 F.2d 1176 (4th Cir. 1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 934 (1978).
42.
Dotbard, supra note 29, at 331.
43.
546 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Ala. 1982).
44.
Id. at 264–65.
45.
408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969) [hereinafter referred to as Weeks].