In the midst of the Lochner era, many men, women, and children were forced to work long hours with minimal pay. The national government struck down state laws that standardized work regulation in order to promote a free economy. However, a new work precedent was set when Muller v. Oregon was decided upon. In Muller v. Oregon, Justice Josiah Brewer, along with the unanimous consent of the Supreme Court, decided to enforce a labor law on the basis of sex. Curt Muller was fined for forcing a woman to work more than ten hours and the Supreme Court upheld the charge because women are perceived as physically weaker than males at the time. (Brewer 82). This case used the hegemonic idea of the male patriarch in order to support the usage of labor …show more content…
Oregon decision, a precedent for labor hour laws was set based on genders. With the Industrial Revolution booming, many people have been looking for jobs at factories. With the factories, cheap labor is easy to find but the working conditions are harsh and the hours are long for minimal pay; one job is hard to support a family. As Woodrow Wilson put it, “There was a time when corporations played a very minor part in our business affairs, but now they play the chief part, and most men are the servants of the corporations” (Wilson 41). Labor laws are definitely needed during the Lochner era because many people were subjugated with terrible work because they needed to be able to support their family. Muller v. Oregon jumpstarted the nation into the transition for safer work and was a huge step for lining the nation into a safe haven for everyone. However, the execution of a safer world was inadequate because of its repercussions. With the hegemonic male patriarch in society, women are viewed as subservient in our society. The gender formation with amount of physical strength has translated to women being perceived as weaker and needing fewer hours in order to survive. They are constantly seen as weak because a “woman’s physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious” (Brewer 83). People view giving birth as females’ behaviors because males cannot give birth. Because women give birth, society inherently gives women the job of taking care of their offspring. Men have an inborn personality of independence and apathy; because women do not share the same characteristics, they view females as inferior. Men have synonymously put child birth and taking care of children as one value for women, making them inferior because males are not born with that characteristic of care. History has shown repeatedly that women are seen as weaker and this case further justifies this fact.
Due to the demand of labor occurring in America, industries were at a deficit in workers. This led for young women to be hired to fill the gaps of labor of the deficit. This change went against society’s perception of a woman’s role. Before industries allowed women
(DOC G) It did rule that child labor is a state matter, but is showed that the Supreme Court at that time did not always reflect the Progressive Era.
Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?
Eisenstadt v. Baird was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. It ruled in favor of unmarried couples using birth control. Griswold v. Connecticut provided the right for secrecy under the marital bedroom only, but not birth control on unmarried couples. The ruling was based it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The argument was simple. The law which the defendants were penalized was a Massachusetts law of “Crimes Against Chastity”. Because it did not prosecuted marry couples due to buying, possessing, or using birth controls, it was discriminatory this law persecuted unmarried couples for it. Also it was ruled one of the defendants was exercising his freedom of speech, when distributing birth control. Therefore he could not be punished. Judge Brennan wrote in his opinion
The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view
The significance of Lorena Week’s sex discrimination case was that women can use the legal system to achieve for equality. Week’s case led the National Origination for Women to challenge discriminatory laws. Lorena weeks was a single mother of three children living in Wadley, Georgia. She worked as a telephone operator for many years at the Southern Bell Company. As a single mother, Weeks struggled to provide for her family on her low wages. When the position of Switchman opened, Weeks applied for the position. The switchman job had higher wages and since weeks had been with the company for many years she had seniority rights for the position. When Weeks confronted the company, they said the position was reserved for men and didn’t consider
Women’s history in the United States has always been represented as a struggle for rights. Wealth and status were tied to either their fathers or husbands. In the early 1900s, women were afforded the traditional roles of society. The majority of women worked in the home. If they were of the 18% young or poor women, they also worked in factories as laborers, manufacturing items for the booming industrial revolution (U.S. Department of Labor, 1980). During this time period the workplace was not in compliance with current safety standards. There was no minimum wage yet, work conditions were horrible and they worked long hours, “In 1900, the average workweek in manufacturing was 53 hours,” (Fisk, 2003). Women took “pink
Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related
The human brain is a remarkably intricate organ. Therefore, simple mutations in its complexity can result in devastating conditions leading to acts of violence. Kinkel, a fifteen-year-old boy, demonstrates his partaking in the unnecessary murders of both his parents and innocent bystanders. Kinkel is said to have shown signs of his intentions through inconspicuous matters. Later holding the guilt of four deaths and twenty-six attempts via semi-automatic weaponry (para. 5). The mental instability of the subject is proven to be in effect, and a suitable cause for these behaviors. The document in question is “The State of Oregon v. Kipland Philip Kinkel”, in which encompasses a trial the young boy capable of murder. Kinkel is convicted of the absolute minimal sentence for the nature of his crimes, followed by his seemly confession. The defense and prosecution contemplate proper arguments given the defendants substantial witnesses to the crimes and articles of law. Justice is debated among the courts and how to satisfy these reprimands. Judge Haselton effectively uses ethos, logos, and pathos to support the higher courts decision to deny the appeal because the original sentence was constitutional and just.
In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.
As the economic changes swept through America with the Industrial Revolution, so did society and the traditional roles of men and women. These changes hit the lower class women particularly hard because not only did they have to work long hours at a factory; they also had to maintain the household as traditions required of women. With all of these responsibilities that women now had, perhaps the strain hit women because rarely had they been required to do so much. Oregon saw this and created a law in 1903 that stated that women were only allowed to work a maximum of ten hours a day. Similar laws had been passed in other states so it made some people wonder, did the Oregon law violate the women's freedom of
Florence Kelley was a hard working woman who dedicated her life to changing the lives of women and children. She deserves a place in history because she is responsible for the passing of the “Fair Labor Standards Act, abolishing child labor and setting maximum hours and minimum wage for all working adults” (“Florence Kelley”, 2001). Motivation Florence Kelley’s father and her values motivated her. Her father, for example, was “a Republican Congressman who supported abolition and women’s suffrage…”
Freedom of assembly defines the right to hold public meetings and form associations without interference by the government. In the case of “De Jonge v. Oregon,” the Court protected freedom of assembly from state actions and rather referred to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Dirk De Jonge was a member of the Communist Party. De Jonge protested against “police brutality.” Oregon charged De Jonge as wanting to cause civil unrest. However, in the end, the case made it to the Supreme Court who stated the following, “No State . . . shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). “The Court said this means that peaceable assembly cannot be made a crime” (“Dejonge v. Oregon - 1937”). Another freedom of assembly case, Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network involved pro-life protestors who surrounded abortion clinics. The Pro-Choice Network complained that pro-life protestors were hassling their clients outside their clinics (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). This case was about the assembly rights of citizens who wanted to protest abortion, which was their First Amendment right (“Schenck v. Pro-choice Network (1996) - Bill of Rights Institute”). The Supreme Court struck down the “floating buffer zone” due to safety concerns, yet upheld that pro-life protesters can still pass out leaflets and make statements from the approved buffer zone (“Schenck
At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only
Women fought very hard for their rights in the workplace. Some of them, including Susan B Anthony, went above and beyond the norm. Yet, today our rights are still not the same as a man’s. At one point women weren’t allowed to work at all, and today they are allowed to have jobs while still being home makers. Although improvements have been made, there are still several dilemmas that need to be addressed. A women earns less than a man when doing the same work, and that is extremely unfair. Another issue in the workplace is that men underestimate women due to lack of strength and discrimination. There are also the issues of pregnancy and sexual