Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union vs. American Cyanamid

1. Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union vs. American Cyanamid Presented by: Chris Farrelly LVPP

2. IN 1978 CYANAMID INITIATED A POLICY THAT LED TO THE SURGICAL STERILIZATION OF 5 WOMEN EMPLOYEES.- POLICY: WOMEN BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 AND 50 WOULD BE DEEMED OF CHILD BEARING CAPACITY AND WOULD BE TERMINATED UNLESS SHE PRESENTED PROOF OF SURGICAL STERILIZATION.- THIS WAS A REACTIONARY POLICY AIMED AT ALLEVIATING CERTAIN LIABILITY FOR WOMEN WHO WERE EXPOSED TO LEAD IN THE INORGANIC PIGMENTS DEPARTMENT.

3. THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT: • THE GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE: THE EMPLOYER DID NOT FURNISH EMPLOYMENT AND A PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WHICH WERE FREE FROM RECOGNIZED HAZARDS THAT WERE CAUSING OR WERE LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL HARM TO EMPLOYEES IN THAT: THE EMPLOYER ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED A POLICY WHICH REQUIRED WOMEN EMPLOYEESTO BE STERILIZED IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO WORK IN THE AREAS OF THE PLANT WHERE THEY WOULD BE EXPOSED TO CERTAIN TOXIC SUBSTANCES…

4. IN 1979, THE SECRETARY OF LABOR CITED THE COMPANY FOR A VIOLATION OF THE OSH ACT. • THE COMPANY CHALLENGED THE CITATION AND WON. • THE DECISION WAS UPHELD BOTH BY THE OSH REVIEW COMMISSION AND THEN BY THE D.C. CIRCUIT OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OCAW vs. AMERICAN CYANAMID Co. BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE DID NOT SEE THE POLICY OF REQUIRING STERILIZATION AS A “HAZARD” WITHIN THE MEANING OF GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE.

5. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE JUDGE MISCONSTRUED THE ACT. • SOME FEAR THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE DECISION AND SAY THAT IT MAY HAVE A GRAVE IMPACT ON OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH POLICY IN THE FUTURE. • THE CASE BECAME A LEGAL ARGUMENT OVER THE DEFINITION OF WORDS AS THEY WERE STATED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ACT AND AS TO HOW THEY MAY BE INTERPRETED.

6. TERMS IN QUESTION: • “WORKING CONDITIONS” • “HAZARDS” • IT IS STATED BY CONGRESS THAT SUCH TERMS MUST BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY WORK IN FAVOR OF THE INDIVIDUALS FOR WHOM THEY WERE DESIGNED TO PROTECT.

7. QUESTION: IS THERE A WAY TO PROTECT WORKER HEALTH WHILE ESTABLISHING A LIMIT TO EMPLOYER LIABILITY, ALL THE WHILE AVOIDING THE CHOICE BETWEEN LIMITLESS LIABILITY AND EMPLOYER IMMUNITY?

8. THE ACTIONS OF CYANAMID FALL UNDER THE INITIATION OF FETAL PROTECTION LAWS WHICH WERE INTRODUCED INTO THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY AROUND THIS TIME. THESE ACTIONS ALONE ARE NOT THE ONLY REASON FOR THE EXSISTENCE OF THIS CASE, AS THE OSH ACTS WERE DESIGNED TO PREVENT EMPLOYERS FROM FORCING WORKERS TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THEIR JOBS AND THEIR HEALTH.

9. WAS THIS POLICY AN INVASION OF PRIVACY? • WAS IT UNFAIR TO WOMEN IN GENERAL? • DO LAWS ALLOW TOO MUCH ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION? • DOES A COMPANY HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERDICT BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER RIGHT TO BEAR CHILDREN?

10. THE MILITARY’S SOLUTION • NAVAL REACTORS AND RADIATION EXPOSURE.

11. CONCLUSION • DUE TO JUDGE BORK’S DECISION IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE (LEGALLY) FOR A COMPANY TO ENFORCE SUCH POLICIES AS THESE, REGARDLESS OF THE SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC STATUS OF THE EMPLOYED. • IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT COURTS REJECT BORK’S INTERPRETATION OF THE OSH ACT AND FORMULATE THEIR OWN LEGAL STANDARDS THAT USE THE ACT TO FUNCTION TO PROTECT WORKERS THE WAY CONGRESS INTENDED IT TO.

12. RESOURCES: • www.findlaw.com • www.wvculture.org • www.globalcircle.net