Louis Muller Case

Words: 1137
Pages: 5

In 1908, the Supreme Court decided a case that would later become a landmark in future protective legislation, as well as shaped the trajectory of women's rights up until the 1960’s. The state of Oregon enacted a law that limited the female work day to 10 hours in both factories and laundries. Curt Muller, who was the owner of a laundry, violated the law and was fined. However, Muller appealed the conviction and it landed in front of the Supreme Court. There, the question arose of whether or not this piece of protective legislation for women violated the 14th amendment. The court, in a unanimous decision, upheld that this law was indeed constitutional and defined the state's interest in protecting women specifically. While this was a win for …show more content…
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