Transcript Document

Muller v. Oregon
A Question of Women’s Rights
Background Information
O On February 19, 1903, the legislature of the
State of Oregon passed an act stating:
O SEC. 1. That no female shall be employed in
any mechanical establishment, or factory, or
laundry in this State more than ten hours
during any one day. The hours of work may be
so arranged as to permit the employment of
females at any time so that they shall not
work more than ten hours during the twentyfour hours of any one day.
Background continued
O Sec. 3 made a violation of the provisions of
the prior sections a misdemeanor subject to
a fine of not less than $10 nor more than
$25.
O The law was designed to protect women’s
health because their ability to produce
healthy offspring was a vital interest of the
state.
The Case
O On September 18, 1905, information was
filed in the State of Oregon charging that Joe
Haselbock, supervisor of the Grand Laundry
in Portland, OR (owned by Curt Muller)
required a female worker, Mrs. E. Gotcher, to
work more than 10 hours on September 4th.
Verdict and Appeals
O A trial resulted in a verdict against the
defendant, who was sentenced to pay a fine
of $10.
O Muller appealed to the Supreme Court of
the State which affirmed the conviction.
O He then appealed to the United States
Supreme Court.
US Supreme Court
O It had been decided by the State Supreme
Court that the law did not violate State law.
O When brought to the US Supreme Court, the
question before the justices was whether or
not the law violated the 14th Amendment’s
right of people to make their own contracts.
Fourteenth Amendment
O No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Muller’s Argument
O Oregon’s law violates the 14th Amendment
because the statute does not apply equally to all
persons.
O The kinds of work prescribed are not unlawful, nor
are they declared to be immoral or dangerous to
the public health; nor can such a law be sustained
on the ground that it is designed to protect women
on account of their sex.
O There is no necessary or reasonable connection
between the limitation prescribed by the act and
the public health, safety, or welfare.
Unanimous Opinion
O A unanimous opinion was given
by Justice David J. Brewer.
O They decided in favor of the
State of Oregon and its ability to
regulate the number of hours
worked by women.
O This decision put a woman's
child-bearing ability and stability
of her family over her rights as a
worker.
Justice Brewer’s Remarks:
O "That woman's physical structure and the
performance of maternal functions place her at a
disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is
obvious. This is especially true when the burdens
of motherhood are upon her. Even when they are
not, by abundant testimony of the medical
fraternity continuance for a long time on her feet
at work, repeating this from day to day, tends to
injurious effects upon the body, and as healthy
mothers are essential to vigorous offspring, the
physical well-being of woman becomes an object
of public interest and care in order to preserve the
strength and vigor of the race."
Effect
O Progressives were happy with this outcome.
O Equal-rights feminists were not because it
upheld stereotype gender roles and
restricted women’s financial ability.