| Muller v. Oregon | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 15, 1908 Decided February 24, 1908 | |
| Full case name | Curt Muller, Plaintiff in Error v. The State of Oregon. Appellant's claim: Oregon's 1903 maximum hours law is unconstitutional. |
| Citations | 208 U.S. 412 (more) 28 S. Ct. 324; 52 L. Ed. 551; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1452 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted; affirmed, 85 P. 855 (Or. 1906) |
| Subsequent | None |
| Holding | |
| Oregon's limit on the working hours of women was constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was justified by the strong state interest in protecting women's health. Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Brewer, joined unanimously |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV; 1903 Or. Laws p. 148 | |
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court.[1] Women were permitted by state mandate fewer working hours than those allotted to men. The posed question was whether women's liberty to negotiate a contract with an employer should be equal to a man's. The law did not recognize sex-based discrimination in 1908; it was unrecognized until the case of Reed v. Reed in 1971; here, the test was not under the equal protections clause, but a test based on the general police powers of the state to protect the welfare of women when it infringed on her fundamental right to negotiate contracts; inequality was not a deciding factor because the sexes were inherently different in their particular conditions and had completely different functions;[2] usage of labor laws that were made to nurture women's welfare and for the "benefit of all" people[3] was decided to be not a violation of the Constitution's Contract Clause.
The case describes women as having dependency upon men in a manner such that women needed their rights to be preserved by the state; their "rights" were in effect, to have maternal gender roles, again however to the loss of some of their contractual liberties. The quotes for the decision follows:
woman has always been dependent upon man."[4]
"in the struggle for subsistence she is not an equal competitor with her brother."[3]
"Though limitations upon personal and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is that in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full assertion of those rights."[3]
"her physical structure and a proper discharge of her maternal functions — having in view not merely her own health, but the well-being of the race — justify legislation to protect her from the greed as well as the passion of man."[3]
"The limitations which this statute places upon her contractual powers, upon her right to agree with her employer as to the time she shall labor, are not imposed solely for her benefit, but also largely for the benefit of all."[3]
The ruling had important implications for protective labor legislation[5] and was decided just three years after Lochner v. New York,[6] in which a New York law restricting the weekly working hours of bakers in the state was invalidated.