Muller v. Oregon
208 U.S. 412 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may constitutionally limit the working hours of women, distinguishing them from men, as a valid exercise of its police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Facts:
- In 1903, the Oregon legislature passed a law prohibiting females from being employed in any mechanical establishment, factory, or laundry for more than ten hours per day.
- Curt Muller was the owner of the Grand Laundry in Portland, Oregon.
- Muller employed women, including a Mrs. E. Gotcher, at his laundry.
- On September 4, 1905, Muller, through his overseer, required Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than ten hours in a single day.
Procedural Posture:
- An information was filed against Curt Muller in the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Oregon, charging him with violating the state's law limiting female labor hours.
- A trial resulted in a verdict against Muller, and he was sentenced to pay a $10 fine.
- Muller appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Oregon, the state's highest court.
- The Supreme Court of Oregon affirmed the trial court's conviction.
- Muller then brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error to review the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Oregon state law prohibiting the employment of women in laundries or factories for more than ten hours a day violate the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brewer
No, the Oregon law does not violate the liberty of contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. While the general right to contract is protected, this liberty is not absolute and may be restricted by the state's police power. The Court distinguished this case from Lochner v. New York, which struck down a similar law for male bakers, by reasoning that inherent physical and social differences between men and women justify different legislative treatment. The Court took judicial notice of the widespread belief that woman's physical structure and maternal functions place her at a disadvantage, making long hours of labor injurious to her health and, by extension, to the health and vigor of the human race. Therefore, legislation designed to protect women as a class is a reasonable exercise of state police power for the benefit of all society.
Analysis:
This decision established a significant exception to the Lochner-era doctrine of substantive due process and freedom of contract, upholding sex-based protective legislation. While considered a progressive victory for labor rights at the time, its rationale was rooted in paternalistic stereotypes about women's physical inferiority and social roles. This reasoning was later rejected by the Court in cases advancing gender equality under the Equal Protection Clause. The case is also famous for the introduction of the 'Brandeis Brief,' a legal argument that relies heavily on scientific and sociological data, which has since become a common practice in appellate advocacy.
