$1.$ To what extent should a woman have the right to make decisions that will affect not only her health but also the health of her unborn child? To what extent should a woman$$s consent to or acknowledgment of danger mit$-$igate an employer$$s liability? What if a child born with lead$-$induced birth defects sues? Should the mother$$s consent apply as a defense?

$2.$ The U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court eventually decided Johnson Controls$$ policy was discriminatory and a violation of Title VII$\mathrm{.}94$ The court focused on the issue of men capable of reproduction not being covered by the policy$\mathrm{.}95$ What steps would you take as director of human resources to deal with the issue?

$3.$ The fallout from the Johnson Controls decision has been that many women have been working in jobs that expose them to toxins. The U$.$S$.$ Supreme Court did acknowledge in its holding that tort liability might result from its decision, but that such liability was oftenused as a guise or cover for gender discrimination. However, $14$ years after the decision, women who were held to be entitled to the high$-$risk jobs are now suing their employers for the birth defects in their children. For example, IBM faced several suits from employees and their children against it for defects allegedly tied to production$-$line toxins even if evidence existed linking the toxins to birth defects, the women took the jobs with knowledge about the risk and agreed to that risk. How can employers, legislators, and public policy specialists reconcile antidiscrimination laws and these risks of$$ exposure?$4.$ At what times, if any, should discrimination issues be subordinate to other issues, such as the risk of danger to unborn children?