Muller v. Oregon, 1908

Women played a major role in progressivism. In pursuing a wide array of reforms, women helped to bring relief from the problems accompanying industrialization and urbanization. In this way they sought to benefit men as well as themselves. Yet to further advance their cause, reformers sometimes chose to emphasize the physical and psychological distinctions between the sexes (Documents 19.5 and 19.7). Unlike the battle for equal suffrage, in the field of labor relations reformers highlighted the weaknesses of women compared to men and argued for women’s protection in the workplace. To a large extent, Supreme Court precedents forced them to do so. In 1905 the Court concluded that the government generally had limited power to regulate the private contracts workers entered into with their employers concerning hours and wages. Following this ruling, progressives such as Florence Kelley, the head of the National Consumers League, attempted to find a way to extend labor protections to women by distinguishing them from men.

In 1903 Oregon passed a law that prohibited the employment of women in factories and laundries for more than ten hours a day. Subsequently, Curt Muller, the owner of a laundry, compelled Emma Gotcher to work more than the maximum number of hours. After Gotcher complained, a local judge ruled against Muller, whose appeal wound up in the Supreme Court (Document 19.6). In 1908 the Court upheld the Oregon law (Document 19.8). In this instance, women workers won, but in the long run their victory dealt a blow to women’s claim of equality with men (Document 19.9). Muller provided ammunition for employers to discriminate against women on the basis of gender differences in hiring and promotion. Following this case, the Supreme Court in Bunting v. Oregon (1917) did extend the ten-hour day to male workers. However, this ruling did not erase the legal distinctions between men and women established in Muller.

As you read the following documents, consider the reasons behind the legal arguments for protecting women workers. What are the tensions between difference and equality? Looking back, how would you have argued on behalf of the Oregon law?