who was the women lawyer in the mullen v. oregon case to limit working hours

What was the case of Muller v Oregon?

Provided by Oyez. Oregon enacted a law that limited women to ten hours of work in factories and laundries. The owner of a laundry business, Curt Muller, was fined $10 when he violated the law. Muller appealed the conviction. The state supreme court upheld the law’s constitutionality.

Does the Muller case justify prohibiting women from working?

May 22, 2017 · Muller v. Oregon Case Brief. Statement of the facts: Oregon’s legislature passed a law which limited the working hours of female employees. Under the law passed in 1903, a woman could not work more than ten hours a day. Mr. Curt Muller was convicted of violating the statute when he required a woman to work over the limit at his laundry facility.

Who was the lawyer for Muller in the Muller v Nixon case?

Muller v. State of Oregon, U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1908 that, although it appeared to promote the health and welfare of female workers, in fact led to additional protective legislation that was detrimental to equality in the workplace for years to come. At issue was an Oregon law passed in 1903 that prohibited women from working more than 10 hours in one day. Curt …

What did David Brewer do in Muller v Oregon?

Muller v. State of Oregon. United States 1908. Synopsis. Muller v. State of Oregon was an influential Supreme Court decision that asserted the right of the government to limit the workday for women. Using social science evidence, Louis Brandeis argued before the Court that women who worked long hours on the job suffered both physical and psychological problems.

What Supreme Court case dealt with limiting women's work hours?

Who was involved in the Muller vs Oregon case?

Who was the judge who persuaded the Court to limit working hours?

What Supreme Court case limited the working hours of women and children?

Who decided Muller v. Oregon?

Who was president during Muller v. Oregon?

When was Muller v. Oregon?

When was Muller v. Oregon overturned?

What did the 1903 Muller v. Oregon decision uphold?

How did Muller v Oregon hurt women?

Which of the following is true of the Supreme Court's decision in Muller v Oregon?

What is Brandeis brief method?

What was the significance of Muller v. Oregon?

Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. Women were provided by state mandate lesser work-hours than 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.

Which amendment was the Oregon limit on working hours?

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. Chief Justice.

How much was Muller fined?

Muller was fined $10. Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and then to the U.S. Supreme Court, both of which upheld the constitutionality of the labor law and affirmed his conviction.

Who argued the Goldmark case?

Her brother-in-law, the future Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, argued the case in the U.S. Supreme Court. Goldmark and Brandeis's innovation would come to be known as a " Brandeis Brief ," and many others would later be modeled on it.".

Is the Oregon maximum hours law unconstitutional?

The State of Oregon. Appellant's claim: Oregon's 1903 maximum hours law is unconstitutional. 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.

What was the case of Muller v. Oregon?

Oregon, Supreme Court of the United States, (1908) Case summary for Muller v. Oregon: An Oregon state law restricted a women’s working hours to ten per day. After being convicted of requiring a woman to violate the statute, Muller, a laundry business owner, challenged the constitutionality of the statute. The state courts continued to find ...

What was the law in Oregon that allowed women to work more than 10 hours a day?

Statement of the facts: Oregon’s legislature passed a law which limited the working hours of female employees. Under the law passed in 1903, a woman could not work more than ten hours a day. Mr. Curt Muller was convicted of violating the statute when he required a woman to work over the limit at his laundry facility.

Why did the Supreme Court uphold the Muller v. Oregon case?

The Court upheld the lower court’s decision because women are uniquely qualified to fulfill these roles, and it was established that the natural order of society was for women to depend on men to work the long hours. Muller v. Oregon Case Brief.

What is the safety hazard of working for more than ten hours a day?

These reports also support the concept that working for more than ten hours per day reduces women’s abilities to perform basic maternal functions.

Who did Muller appeal to?

In response, Muller appealed to the state supreme court. After they found for the state, Muller appealed to the United States Supreme Court, who granted certiorari.

Why can't a woman work without a man?

A state is permitted to constitutionally limit a woman’s working hours without limiting a man’s working hours because the state has a strong interest in promoting the health of women – the “weaker sex.”

What law prohibited women from working more than 10 hours in one day?

At issue was an Oregon law passed in 1903 that prohibited women from working more than 10 hours in one day. Curt Muller, a laundry owner, was charged in 1905 with permitting a supervisor to require Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than 10 hours and was fined $10.

What did the Muller case argue about?

Fenton, contended that the statute violated Mrs. Gotcher’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process by preventing her from freely contracting with her employer. However, the attorney for the state, Louis D. Brandeis, chose to argue on the grounds that women needed “special protection” by virtue of their physical differences from men. In what became known as the “Brandeis brief,” a 113-page document outlining quasiscientific data on the negative effects of long working hours on both women and men, he focused particularly on women’s dependent and biologically reproductive roles as opposed to economic issues. The court, referring to the “proper discharge of her maternal functions” and the “well-being of the race,” wrote that a woman “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, and could not be sustained.”

What does the court mean by "proper discharge of her maternal functions"?

The court, referring to the “proper discharge of her maternal functions” and the “well-being of the race,” wrote that a woman “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, and could not be sustained.”.

What states were the first to limit the number of hours women could work?

Many of these reformers were successful in convincing state legislatures to enact laws to restrict the number of hours women could work. Massachusetts was the first state to address this issue. In 1842 the state legislature passed a law limiting the number of hours children could work and then, five years later, added women to the measure. Men, however, were never added to the legislation. Under pressure from the reformers at Hull House, a settlement house in Chicago, Illinois, that state passed a measure in 1893 to limit the number of hours women could work in factories to just eight per day. By 1902 Washington, New York, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania had all passed laws limiting the number of hours women could work in industry. Women workers challenged most of the laws in these states.

Why was the case of Muller important?

This case was important because it would set the legal precedent identifying the inherent differences between men and women. Finally, an important case that set the stage for Muller was Lochner v.

What was the effect of the Muller decision?

Muller gave Congress the right to pass subsequent "protective" legislation that restricted the rights of women workers. This led in turn to the exclusion of women from certain kinds of occupations and employment opportunities. The Muller decision has never been overturned in the same way Brown v. Boardof Education of Topeka overturned Plessy v. Ferguson. With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legislators have since mitigated the restrictive and discriminatory intent the original legislation promoted.

Why did the Reformers believe that white women would learn immoral behavior?

The more race-conscious reformers feared that young white women would be exposed to women of color in the workplace. As a result of this workplace "race mixing, " reformers believed that white women would learn immoral behavior, which in turn would denigrate white civilization. While these reformers may have genuinely believed that they were trying to uplift white women, they had no interest in reforming the circumstances of women of color in the workplace.

What was the significance of Muller v. Oregon?

Muller v. Oregon, one of the most important U.S. Supreme Court cases of the Progressive Era , upheld an Oregon law limiting the workday for female wage earners to ten hours. The case established a precedent in 1908 to expand the reach of state activity into the realm of protective labor legislation.

Who was the attorney for the case of Muller v. State?

Supreme Court. Muller’s attorney for the appeal was William Fenton, an opponent of state intervention in the economy.

What was the Lochner decision?

Most notably, in the Lochner decision of 1905, the Court had ruled unconstitutional a New York law that had limited the hours of employment bakeries could impose on their workers, all of whom were male, on the grounds that it was an unhealthful profession.

Who wrote the defense brief in the Muller case?

Kelley sought out attorney Louis Brandeis to write the defense brief in the Muller case. His use of social scientific research to argue that women were adversely affected by long hours of labor was an attempt to get around the Lochner decision.

Who said the state has no right to lay any disability upon women?

While the argument aimed to prevent the state from gaining any right to regulate economic activity, it also expressed the sentiment of many feminists of the era, including Clara Colby , the editor of the Portland -based Woman’s Tribune: “The state has no right to lay any disability upon woman as an individual.”.

What did Florence Kelley believe about the Lochner case?

Yet, many advocates of reform, like Florence Kelley of the National Consumers' Union, believed that the protection of women would open the door for greater state protections of workers. She sought a means to get around Supreme Court decisions that had closed down the ungendered path. Most notably, in the Lochner decision of 1905, the Court had ruled unconstitutional a New York law that had limited the hours of employment bakeries could impose on their workers, all of whom were male, on the grounds that it was an unhealthful profession. Kelley sought out attorney Louis Brandeis to write the defense brief in the Muller case. His use of social scientific research to argue that women were adversely affected by long hours of labor was an attempt to get around the Lochner decision.

What was the case of Muller vs Oregon?

Oregon, the Supreme Court came up with an answer to this critical question. A laundry owner named Curt Muller was fined for violating an Oregon law that restricted women to a ten-hour workday . Muller appealed the fine first to the local court and eventually to the Supreme Court of the United States. Concerned about keeping working hour limits valid, the National Consumers' League, a progressive group committed to keeping minimum wage laws and maximum working hour laws in effect, hired a well-known attorney named Louis Brandeis to argue the case in front of the Supreme Court.

What is the Muller v. Oregon case?

Oregon is viewed with mixed results. The notion that workers must be protected from their employers by limiting the number of hours they can be mandated to work is often seen as a positive aspect of this case. Today, workers enjoy many protections in the form of minimum wages, overtime, and enforced break times, all of which came about after the Muller case. On the other hand, the Muller decision clearly states that women are different than men and in need of special protection from the state. For many modern Americans, the idea that women cannot choose their own working conditions, while men can do so, is nothing less than gender discrimination.

How did the Progressives solve the problem of women working outside the home?

The Progressives attempted to solve this problem by limiting women's ability to work outside the home. In Muller vs. Oregon, a laundry owner argued that limiting women to a ten-hour work day was an unconstitutional violation of their right to choose their own employment. Due in large part to a unique legal brief by Louis Brandeis, the Supreme Court concluded that the states could limit the working hours of women.

What was the lifestyle of women in the 1800s?

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, life in America shifted from a largely rural style of living where most Americans lived and worked on farms or ranches to an increasingly urban lifestyle where most Americans lived and worked in industrial cities. This shift brought along with it a number of new challenges, particularly in regard to family life and gender roles. The ideal role for women of the time was to work inside their homes, keeping the house clean, preparing the meals, and caring for their children; however, with the rising cost of living in cities, many women entered the workforce and helped support their families by working in factories, often for fourteen to sixteen hours at a time.

What did the Court decide in Muller v. Oregon?

The decision in Muller v. Oregon resulted in other state laws related to wages, work hours, and work conditions.

How many hours did the Oregon state law require women to work?

On September 4, 1905, he required a female employee to work more than ten hours in a single day. This conflicted with an Oregon law that allowed for a maximum of ten hour workdays for women who worked in mechanical establishments, factories, and laundries.

What was the primary tabs in Muller v. Oregon?

Oregon (1908) Primary tabs. Muller v. Oregon (1908) is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court considered whether a state could limit the amount of hours a woman could work while not also limiting the hours of men. In this case, Curt Muller owned a laundry business.

Which court affirmed the Oregon Supreme Court decision?

Muller appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court, who affirmed the decision. On writ of error, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and considered whether the Oregon law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What was the case in Muller vs Oregon?

Oregon, a laundry owner argued that limiting women to a ten-hour work day was an unconstitutional violation of their right to choose their own employment. Due in large part to a unique legal brief by Louis Brandeis, the Supreme Court concluded that the states could limit the working hours of women.

What happened after the Muller case?

After Muller, many states passed wages and hours laws and other statutes regulating the conditions of work. However, in 1923, the Supreme Court ruled this legislation was unconstitutional in Adkins v. Children's Hospital. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s forced the Court to reverse its decision.

Overview

Judgment

In Justice David Josiah Brewer's unanimous opinion, the Court upheld the Oregon regulation. The Court did not overrule Lochner, but instead distinguished it on the basis of "the difference between the sexes". The child-bearing physiology and social role of women provided a strong state interest in reducing their working hours.
That woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disad…

Background

Significance of the case

See also

Further reading

External links