Mr. Justice George Sutherland, writing for the
majority:
{1}In the Muller case, the
validity of an Oregon statute, forbidding the employment of any
female in certain industries more than ten hours during anyone
day was upheld. The decision proceeded upon the theory that the
difference between the sexes may justify a different rule
respecting hours of labor in the case of women than in the case
of men. It is pointed out that these consist in differences of
physical structure, especially in respect of the maternal
functions, and also in the fact that, historically, woman has
always been dependent upon man, who has established his control
by superior physical strength. The cases of Riley, Miller,
and Bosley follow in this respect the Muller
case. But the ancient inequality of the sexes, otherwise than
physical, as suggested in the Muller case . . . has
continued "with diminishing intensity." In view of the great --
not to say revolutionary -- changes which have taken place since
that utterance, in the contractual, political and civil status
of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not
unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost,
if not quite, to the vanishing point. In this aspect of the
matter, while the physical differences must be recognized in
appropriate cases, and legislation fixing hours or conditions of
work may properly take them into account, we cannot accept the
doctrine that women of mature age, sui juris, require
or may be subjected to restrictions upon their liberty of
contract which could not lawfully be imposed in the case of men
under similar circumstances. To do so would be to ignore all the
implications to be drawn from the present day trend of
legislation, as well as that of common thought and usage, by
which woman is accorded emancipation from the old doctrine that
she must be given special protection or be subjected to special
restraint in her contractual and civil relationships. . . .
{2}What is sufficient to supply the
necessary cost of living for a woman worker and maintain her in
good health and protect her morals is obviously not a precise or
unvarying sum -- not even approximately so. The amount will depend
upon a variety of circumstances: the individual temperament,
habits of thrift, care, ability to buy necessaries intelligently,
and whether the woman live alone or with her family. To those who
practice economy, a given sum will afford comfort, while to those
of contrary habit the same sum will be wholly inadequate. The
cooperative economics of the family group are not taken into
account though they constitute an important consideration in
estimating the cost of living. . . The relation
between earnings and morals is not capable of standardization. It
cannot be shown that well paid women safeguard their morals more
carefully than those who are poorly paid. Morality rests upon
other considerations than wages. . . . As a means of safeguarding
morals . . . [minimum wage legislation,] in our opinion, is
without reasonable basis.
