preview

Muller vs. Oregon Essay

Good Essays

Muller vs. Oregon 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 …show more content…

Business owners in Oregon did not have to worry about overworking their employees because if they grew sick and unable to work then there would be another to take his or her place. However, when the law was passed, that stated that women who worked in factories, work no more than ten hours a day; the owners had to be more careful of how many hours they demanded of their female employees lest they create a lawsuit.
Curt Muller, an owner of Great Laundry, on September 4, 1905, required one Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than ten hours in one day. Joe Haselbock who was a superintendent at Great Laundry reported this offense. There was information filed on September 18 and with section 3 of the stature violated, he was to pay a fine of no less than ten dollars and no greater than twenty-five dollars.
This was appealed until it reached the Supreme Court for Muller's reasoning that the law passed by the state of Oregon was unconstitutional, therefore he should not have to pay the fine. Written in his brief, he states:
"(1) Because the stature attempts to prevent persons, sui juris, from making their own contracts, and thus violates the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

Get Access