More handpicked essays just for you.
Women's life during the industrial revolution
Women's life during the industrial revolution
Women's life during the industrial revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Conflict over the working woman’s hours lead to the Muller vs. Oregon case, which was one of the most fundamental cases, and decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. The issue at hand was to decide whether or not women should be limited to working a 10-hour work period each day because of the affects it may have on a woman’s mental and physical health. After much debate from both sides, the court eventually ruled in favor of the 10-hour work regulation. Why was the number of hours women should work such a topic of debate? To answer this question, we must look at the context in which Muller vs. Oregon takes place. During the 19th century, in which Muller vs. Oregon takes place, the United States was undergoing major industrial developments. Factories were popping up everywhere, these factories were no longer strictly producing fabric, but they …show more content…
were now making read made garments as well. Though these factories seem great in terms of supply and demand, the cons of the factories were far greater. Factories not only cause major pollution in industrial cities, but also had terrible working conditions. These factories were overheated, had dangerous equipment, many fire hazards, and could sometimes prove difficult to breathe. Concerned for the mental and physical well- being of women, these conditions caused by industrial revolution are what sparked Muller vs. Oregon. Ultimately, as said before, the court ruled in favor of the 10- hour working regulation. In making this decision, David J. Brewer agreed with Louis Brandeis that woman who work long hours would aid in damaging the welfare of both women and the public, and especially motherhood. Brewer also accepted Brandeis’ evidence and opinions from scientific and sociological views, thus changing the way a courtroom functioned later down the line. It is clear that Louis Brandeis’ side of the case exerted the most influence on the court, because it is mostly where the reasons for ruling in favor of the regulation stemmed from. The verdict constantly refers back to the woman’s physical structure, motherhood and the fact that women have always been dependent upon men. As I was reading the verdict, it felt as though I was hearing Brandeis’ argument all over again. The court clearly sided with Brandeis’ argument compared to that of Muller. Within the verdict, it states, “ Differentiated by these matter from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when legislation is not necessary for men and could not be sustained. It is impossible to close one’s eyes to the fact that she still looks to her brother and depends upon him.” (Muller V. Oregon 149) This was the court’s reasoning for women to need a specially defined status in the workplace. They came to the conclusion that women have always been dependent on men and always will be and thus they will always need protection. Additionally, it was decided that this legislation was justified because it would “…protect her from the greed as well as the passion of a man” (Muller V. Oregon 149). Furthermore, it is later stated that in all, the two sexes are different in every way. The way they are built, which tasks can be preformed by each, their physical strength, and the ability to have children. Thus, it is only right that women be designated to their very own status in the workplace because they are the weaker of the sexes and key to well being of the race therefore they must be protected. I don’t know that I am strictly on one side of this debate or the court’s ruling because I feel that the decision made was both harmful in some ways and beneficial in others for women in the workforce. In terms of protecting a woman’s physical and mental health, I feel that the ruling was very beneficial. In the Brandeis Brief it states, “ Long hours, testified experts from America and Europe, caused many ailments, ranging from indigestion, anemia, insomnia, and headaches, to lead poisoning, misshapen joints, and tuberculosis. The overlong day also affected ‘childbirth and female functions” (Muller V Oregon 29) This is one way that I feel the ruling was beneficial, because it helped to decrease these risks mentioned, or eliminate them entirely. On the downside though, this ruling applied to the amount of hours a woman must work for any one job.
Women could still go out and work multiple jobs, thus working more than 10 hours, which makes the ruling essentially non-existent. Additionally, the ruling aided in fueling the fire of inequality between men and women in the workplace; because of this ruling women were still seen as inferior to men and in need of protection even more so than ever before. What I questioned the most while reading and researching this case, was why they were so focused on grown women. These women are adults, they can think and care for themselves, and no when they’ve reached their limit so why is the state so focused on completely capable adult women? This is what bothered me about the whole case. Instead of worrying about adults, it would have been more efficient to try and create laws regarding child labor since they can’t necessarily take care of themselves because they truly are dependent on others. Though I’m aware that it was beneficial in many ways, I just believe it would have been better to focus all attention on child
labor. This case was very interesting to look at and study, and I must say I thoroughly enjoyed this project. I felt like a lawyer researching past cases to win my own, and I learned a lot. Muller V. Oregon was one of the most fundamental cases that changed the way a courtroom ran. It not only changed the position a woman held in the workforce but also changed the fact that scientific and sociological evidence could now be used as evidence and opinion. Each side of the case had very compelling arguments, but ultimately it was Louis Brandeis’ scientific evidence that won the court over. Though the court ruled in favor of the 10-hour work regulation, I don’t believe this ruling was strictly beneficial. The world isn’t just black and white, and every choice has its achievements and downfalls just as I believe Muller V. Oregon did.
I agree with the ruling because everyone should know that they can report sexual harassment and should report it without fear. The ruling found that employers could be held responsible for the actions of their employees who sexually harassed other employees based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case insured that employers will hold training sessions on sexual harassment and not just look the other way or laugh off the actions of a particularly aggressive employee who insists on harassing other employees. The ruling provides remedies if employers do not take it seriously. Unfortunately, it has probably become a “boy who cried wolf” accusation, but probably better to be over cautious than under cautious.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
...that was the first thing that caught my interest, later when reading the case and discovering that two lower cases had both ruled against the plaintiff, that is when I decided to go further in the case. I wanted to know why it was that the lower courts had ruled against her anf not for her. The decision the court made was fair, I agree with the court. It was the fairest ruling the court could have made towards Suders considering that in reality she had lost the lower court ruling because of the fact she didn't really have sufficient evidence that indeed her supervisors had been harassing her. Therefore, I think the outcome of this particular case was fair and I would have to agree with the decision the United States Supreme Court made towards Suders.
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 have, perhaps the strain hit women because rarely have 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.
Many people today argue that McCulloch v. Maryland is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in United States history. Three main points were made by Chief Justice Marshall in this case, and all of these points have become critical and necessary parts of the U.S. Government and how it functions. The first part of the Supreme Court’s ruling stated that Congress has implied powers under a specific part of the Constitution referred to as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The second section of the ruling determined that the laws of the United States are more significant and powerful than any state laws that conflict with them. The last element addressed by Chief Justice Marshall was that sovereignty of the Union lies with the people of the
Gonzales v. Oregon is a Supreme Court case that took place in 2005, with the verdict and dissenting opinions stated in January of 2006. The case is about the General Attorney’s ruling of a medical practice to be illegal. The Attorney General at the time was John Ashcroft, appointed under President George Bush Jr., who authorized that the usage of lethal doses of medicine on terminally-ill patients to be illegal under the Controlled Substance Act in 1970. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is a federal United States drug policy which limits the usage of certain medications in a variety of ways. (Oyez, n.d.).
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), Terry and two other men were noticed by police officers to be hanging around a store, and seemed to possibly be “casing a job.” They were afraid the men might be getting ready to rob the store, due to their appearance and their actions. An officer stopped the men and frisked them. They found guns on them, and arrested them (Oyez, n.d.).
Maximum hour and minimum wage legislation performed the eugenic function of protecting the white race. While the reformers viewed women as capable, industrious, and reliable, they also placed limits on women’s abilities to work. They upheld the idea that women must not experience serious health issues in work settings that could cause them to bear morally deficient or disabled children. Giving into paternalism, reformers sought to limit the rights of men to exploit women, asking men to protect women, and in turn failing to empower women. Suffragists aimed to guard familial structures form the marketplace, protect
With laborers confronting extended periods, hazardous conditions, and poor pay, the populists and progressives searched out to determine the issues made by industrialization. The populists set up the eight-hour workday with an end goal to check extend periods of time. The progressives looked to cut specialist's hours likewise, however they additionally endeavored to end kid work, cut laborer's hours, and present a lowest pay permitted by law. On account of Muller v. Oregon, the court maintained an Oregon state law that restricted ladies assembly line laborers to a ten-hour workday, and different states soon started to control the hours worked by
Women’s equality has made huge advancements in the United States in the past decade. One of the most influential persons to the movement has been a woman named Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth faced gender discrimination many times throughout her career and worked hard to ensure that discrimination based on a person’s gender would be eliminated for future generations. Ginsburg not only worked to fight for women’s equality but fought for the rights of men, as well, in order to show that equality was a human right’s issue and not just a problem that women faced. Though she faced hardships and discrimination, Ruth never stopped working and thanks to her equality is a much closer reality than it was fifty years ago. When Ruth first started her journey in law, women were practically unheard of as lawyers; now three women sit on the bench of the highest court in the nation.
Even to this day, women have not reached maximum equality, but the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade has helped the women’s equality movement drastically take a step in the right direction. Prior to the case, women had their rights very limited and restricted. Everyone was and still is entitled to their basic rights, however pregnant women were not. Their first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment rights were violated and were not addressed until Jane Roe testified in court. The decision made by the court still has a lasting impact even to this day. The landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade was not just a win for Jane Roe, but a win for all women as it helped break the barrier that surrounded women’s equality.
In 1932, the State of Washington legislated a new law that set minimum wages for women. The goal of this law was to establish minimum wages for women and children in order to help combat problems related to women’s health. Elis Parrish who was a maid at a hotel had claimed that the hotel had not paid her the law’s minimum wage. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish was a Supreme Court case that was judged in 1937. The Supreme Court was trying to make a decision on the legitimacy of the minimum wage legislation that was enacted by the State of Washington. This legislation by the State of Washington overturned an earlier decision on the court case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital that was judged in 1923. This is an important Supreme Court case because it is believed to have ended the Lochner era which was a period that the Supreme Court tended to dismiss cases related to economic regulations that were adopted by State courts.
Griswold V. Connecticut may have been the most significant of the Warren Courts Rulings: it struck down a Connecticut statute that banned the dissemination of information concerning birth control, which can be considered the foundation of Roe V. Wade, which provided prochoice rights to women.
Minimum wage increased in 20 states with approval of lawmakers as we stepped into 2015. That when should the government to step in and interfere with business in free market in the United States remains a hot topic in the society. Muller v. NYC case took place at a time when the economy was booming, the so-called Gilded Age. However, that was an era of sin covered with fair skin because business owners exploited workers as dispensable commodities. NYC implemented a new law in 1896 to limit maximum working hours for bakers to 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week to help protect them as well as public health. Lochner, a bakery owner in NYC in early 20th century, was fined twice for not complying with the law. Feeling interfered by an unjust law,
...ween the age of 9 and 13 were only permitted to work 9 hours a day, 2 hours of education was required. The law was once again changed in 1842 to not allow woman and children to work underground, the final law throughout the industrial revolution that involved work requirements for woman and children was placed in 1847, woman and children (14 up) were only permitted to work up to 10 hours on a daily bases usually between 6 in the morning and 6 at night.