Document Text |
Summary |
| It is the law of Oregon that women, whether married or single, have equal contractual and personal rights with men. …
It thus appears that, putting to one side the elective franchise, in the matter of personal and contractual rights [women] stand on the same plane as the other sex. Their rights in these respects can no more be infringed than the equal rights of their brothers. We held in Lochner v. New York . . . a law providing that no laborer shall be required or permitted to work in bakeries more than sixty hours in a week or ten hours in a day was not as to men a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state, but an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract in relation to his labor, and as such was in conflict with, and void under, the Federal Constitution. |
Women and men have equal legal rights in Oregon. Therefore, it seems obvious that women and men should have the same rights related to work in Oregon. The Supreme Court ruled in an earlier case that laws that limit the number of hours men can work are unconstitutional. |
| That decision is invoked by [Muller] as decisive of the question before us. But this assumes that the difference between the sexes does not justify a different rule respecting a restriction of the hours of labor. … | The defendant has cited that ruling in their arguments. But this assumes that the differences between men and women do not justify different treatment. |
| 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. | Women’s bodies and their reproductive capacity place them at a disadvantage in the struggle to survive. This is especially true when a woman has children to take care of. But even when a woman has no children, there is scientific evidence that long hours of standing and performing repetitive manual labor has a bad effect on her health. Because healthy mothers are necessary to produce and raise healthy children, this is a matter of public interest. |
| Still again, history discloses the fact that woman has always been dependent upon man. He established his control at the outset by superior physical strength . . . As minors, though not to the same extent, she has been looked upon in the courts as needing especial care that her rights may be preserved. | History also tells us that women have always been dependent on men. Man’s physical superiority is the reason. This is why women have always been treated with special care in the courts. |
| Doubtless there are individual exceptions, and there are many respects in which she has an advantage over him . . . Differentiated by these matters from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessary for men . . . | Of course, there are exceptions, and there are many other ways women are superior to men, but because women’s physical abilities are different from men’s, laws for their protection can be passed, even if men do not have the same protections. |
| Many words cannot make this plainer. The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long continued labor, particularly when done standing, the influence of vigorous health upon the future well-being of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation, and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her. . | There is not much more to say. Men’s and women’s bodies are different. They have different physical strength, and different capacities for long hours of labor. They are also different in their importance to ensuring the survival of the human race, their capacity for self-reliance, and their ability to support themselves and their children. Their differences justify different laws, especially those which take into account the unique burdens of womanhood. |
| For these reasons . . . we are of the opinion that it cannot be adjudged that the act in question is in conflict with the Federal Constitution. | For the above reasons, we are of the opinion that laws that protect women are constitutional. |
United States Supreme Court, Justice Brewer, Muller v. State of Oregon (excerpt), 208 U.S. 412 (Washington, D.C. 1908).
Background
In the early 1900s most factory workers faced long hours, low wages, and dangerous working conditions. To try to improve their situations, labor activists fought for laws that would protect workers from exploitation by their employers. But many federal, state, and local lawmakers were reluctant to pass laws to regulate workplace conditions. They believed such laws infringed on a man’s right to negotiate directly with his employers. In their 1905 decision of the case Lochner v. New York, the United States Supreme Court upheld that such laws interfered with the individual rights of workers.
Eager to gain protections for at least some workers, activists decided to focus on women workers. They thought this might be an easier fight because social custom held that it was not appropriate for women to negotiate with their employers. Even as more and more women entered the workforce, most Americans believed that caring for home and family should be a woman’s primary concern. For this reason, women were seen as a special category of worker, and some states passed laws that regulated work hours for women.
In 1908 an employer challenged an Oregon law that limited women’s work hours to ten hours a day. In a unanimous decision, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Oregon law, claiming that such laws were necessary to protect the future of the human race. The decision encouraged other states to pass similar laws. It also created a divide among women labor activists. Some believed that any law that improved workplace conditions was a win for workers. Others resented that the ruling was based on the sexist ideas that women were physically inferior to men and that a woman’s primary purpose in life was to bear and raise children. In truth, the laws did little to help women workers. Most employers simply expected women workers to achieve more work in less time while making less money overall. The law also barred women from accepting work that required certain hours or had specific lifting requirements, narrowing the field of available jobs.
For more information about protective legislation for women, explore the videos below.
These videos are from “Women Have Always Worked,” a free massive open online course produced in collaboration with Columbia University.
About the Resources
This document is the official opinion of the US Supreme Court in the case of Muller v. Oregon. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court upheld an Oregon law that limited work hours for women to ten hours a day. The Court claimed that women and men are fundamentally different. It also claimed that men could defend themselves against employers, but that it was the government’s responsibility to protect women from them. In the short term, this decision justified treating women workers as second-class citizens, but in the 1930s it inspired important protection laws for all workers regardless of sex.
Vocabulary
- defendant: The person or entity that is accused of something in a court case.
- exploitation: Taking advantage of people.
- unanimous: Full agreement; no one considering the question disagrees.
- unconstitutional: A law that violates the Constitution of the United States.
- Supreme Court of the United States: The highest court in the US legal system. Decisions made by the US Supreme Court become the law for the whole country.
Discussion Questions
- Why does the Court think that women workers need legal protections, but men do not?
- The opinion calls the “physical well-being of women” a matter of public concern. What does this mean? What do you think about this argument?
- Why were women labor activists divided on the issue of protective labor laws for women?
- Do all workers deserve workplace protections? Why or why not?
Suggested Activities
- APUSH Connection: 7.4: The Progressives
- AP Government Connection: 3.10: Social movements and equal protection
- Explore the competing roles of mother and wageworker by pairing this opinion with Lewis Hine’s photographs of mothers at work.
- Raising a family and working for wages was a balancing act for many women. Connect this document to Margaret Sanger’s clinic poster for a larger discussion about the ways women activists were trying to help women find balance between work and family.
- Muller v. Oregon began when workers at a laundry fought against their poor working conditions, but this was not the first time laundry workers tried to improve their lot. Read about how workers in El Paso, Texas and Jackson, Mississippi fought against exploitive working conditions in a different way.
Themes
WORK, LABOR, AND ECONOMY
