Introduction
The US labor law is based on the Constitution, which has historically determined its implementation features. Notably, at the beginning of the 20th century, government intervention in labor relations and business was redefined. Companies did not like that the state continued to operate within the ‘police procedures’ given to the states by the creators of the Constitution in the late 18th century. These procedures progressed from the fundamental law and regarded the cases related to citizens’ health, safety, morality, and well-being. Therefore, cases such as Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon became an expression of the struggle of supporters of progressive ideas with more conservative and traditional attitudes in society. This paper aims to discuss Muller v. Oregon’s case in the context of protecting the rights of women in the specified historical period.
Evidence Supporting the Limitation of Work Hours for Women
Lochner v. New York case, which forbade limiting baker’s working hours for small bakeries, is perceived as a victory for the progressive forces. However, Muller v. Oregon’s case is usually considered ethically controversial. Simultaneously, an essential feature of the Muller v. Oregon case is a precedent for a document containing scientific and pseudo-scientific arguments used by Attorney Brandeis to support his evidence. In particular, Luis Brandeis drafted the well-known Brandeis brief, which laid out 113 pages of evidence supporting his reasoning for the decision in the case (Bernstein, 2011). Notably, legal precedents were only two pages long, and the evidence gathered to support the argument about women’s physical weakness is hardly scientific.
Even though the decision to ban women from working more than 10 hours a day was perceived in society rather positively, representatives of the feminist movement widely criticized it for the establishment of disrespectful stereotypes. The use of poor argumentation in support of the decision was also widely criticized. As stated above, the Brandeis brief was based on pseudo-scientific evidence supporting the physical imperfection of women compared to men.
The speech of Judge Brewers, who considered the prosecution’s arguments, abounded in the following statements. One of the most convincing arguments was that it is ‘commonly believed that women are weaker than men in the struggle for survival and tend to seek support from the male shoulder. It was also noted that historically men have oppressed women, relying on brute strength, and this process continues to this day, even though it took on more delicate forms (Muller v. Oregon, 1908). Besides, the court drew attention to the fact that women had equal rights in education, making decisions related to owning property, and political rights. However, the court did not consider it logical to continue this list. It argued that since a woman’s health is vital for the well-being of the race, due to her motherhood functions, the state has the right to intervene to protect women from the possible consequences of hard work for their good.
It should be noted here that the final decision limited only white women’s rights, which were representatives of the blue-collar professions, and did not apply to other races, as well as to white-collar workers and kitchen workers. Therefore, it is difficult to speak in this context about the protection of women’s rights. Instead, this law was seen in society as a permissible deviation from ethical norms aimed at ensuring the welfare of women and generally promoting the development of legislative procedures in a progressive direction. Given the references to “maternal responsibilities for the benefit of the race,” the arguments for lowering hours of work for women were not only sexist but racist as well (Muller v. Oregon, 1908). Besides, it was a question of limiting working hours only for representatives of blue-collar occupations, which makes the ruling in Muller v. Oregon a prime example of promoting class inequality.
Notably, at the beginning of the 20th century, the movement for the protection of workers’ rights was only in its infancy. Feminist law canceling the ruling due to the violation of equality between men and women was adopted only in the early seventies. Therefore, the discussion is taking into account the fact that the society of that time sought to protect the opportunities and prospects for subsequent reforms and was much more dependent on traditional views. It is also interesting that the courts were beginning to shift the focus from ensuring a fair trial procedure, which was required by the Constitution, to considering the case in essence. Therefore, Muller v. Oregon is a progressive case in this context.
Arguments Supporting the Limitation of Work Hours for Women
The lawyers’ arguments boiled down that a woman is physically weaker than a man and cannot participate in the struggle for survival on an equal footing with him. Another case was that a woman has responsibilities of motherhood, and has no right to harm her health. An obstacle to the public and court’s acceptance of these arguments was the existence of equal political, personal, and educational rights for women, mentioned by Judge Brewers (Muller v. Oregon, 1908). Women of that time were already able to dispose of property by drawing up appropriate contracts, having equal electoral rights, and the right to education. According to this logic, women should have had equal rights to sign labor contracts. Therefore, lawyers had to appeal to the fact that the state has the right to interfere in labor relations and protect a woman’s health since she has the responsibility of motherhood.
Another controversy was the precedent of Lochner v. New York when a court ruled illegal government interference in business and labor relations between employers and employees of bakeries. Logically, Muller v. Oregon case should have had a similar outcome, since the only difference was that it was about protecting women’s rights. Muller’s attorney used this argument to reject limitations on the work hours of women (Muller v. Oregon, 1908). Therefore, lawyers had to argue that historically, women are weaker than men, and cases for the protection of their rights should be considered similarly to trials for the protection of minors’ rights. In particular, the argument was made that women should be assigned a specific class as minors.
Therefore, Judge Brewers made his ruling based on arguments and evidence overflowing with biases and assumptions. In particular, the leading case was to allow government interference in women’s labor relations because of their maternal functions and for the protection of women and the welfare of the race. This argument was based on women’s maternity functions and obligations and their tendency to seek support in men and the historical male aggressiveness towards women. Besides, the Brandeis brief described above, where legal precedents were to be cited, or at least scientific facts, was based entirely on pseudo-scientific data. For example, this brief argued that women have more fluid in their blood than men, and therefore their knees are more vulnerable and not adapted to work in standing positions (Bernstein, 2011). On the other hand, a precedent was created to consider the case essence, not just the procedure.
Besides, Muller v. Oregon created an example of making court rulings based on ‘common sense and superficial pseudo-scientific arguments. The positive side of this precedent is that the courts began to consider evidence regarding the benefits or harm to the health of the clients. For example, shortly, a similar brief was created to protect the rights of young children of non-white races, particularly their right to study together with white children. It is also one of the first cases in which the court allowed appealing to social sciences to provide evidence and arguments.
Thus, the case Muller v. Oregon was discussed in the context of women’s rights protection in the early 20th century. This document is the most compelling evidence of legal procedures in the specified historical period. This case has become especially crucial in jurisprudence due to the judge’s innovative approach to bringing evidence and argumentation. Besides, here the ruling was made taking into consideration the essence of the case, and not only in the framework of procedural fairness. However, the verdict in the case was not aimed to protect women’s rights since the argumentation was based on purely sexist statements. Moreover, legal relations during this period were characterized by racial and class inequality. Therefore, such rulings continued to create negative stereotypes regarding gender, class, and race.
References
Bernstein, D. E. (2011). Brandeis brief myths. GREEN BAG, 15(1), 9-11.
Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908).