Brandeis, employed rhetoric steeped in sexism to justify their opinions, prioritizing biased perspectives over factual evidence. This kind of language bled into society, fostering an environment of sexism and inequality within the workplace. Despite the court's initial intentions to safeguard women’s well-being, the legacy of the Muller decision reveals the inherent tension between protective legislation and the pursuit of gender equality. Through its paternalistic approach, the decision perpetuated gender stereotypes and hindered women’s progress in the workforce, ultimately In order to safeguard the rights and lives of the labor force, reformers strategically used women as their main platform. During this time, progressive reformers knew legislators would vote to protect women. This served as an “entering wedge” for future protective legislation. Muller v. Oregon was not the first case progressives used to better the protection of female workers. Cases like Commonwealth v. Beatty (1900) and Wenham v. State (1902), all were an attempt to protect women nationwide, and overall shorten their work day. However, they based their decisions off of women's “physical limitations”, emphasizing gender differences and