Adkins v. Children's Hospital

Question 1

Adkins Facts

Answer 1

• Congress passed a minimum wage law for women in D.c.
  
  • but congress has enumerated powers, not police powers
  • d.c. = the only exception
  • d.c. = has a city council but only because congress allowed it to have one in 1973
• Children’s Hospital and a female employee sued Jesse Adkins, a member of the D.C. wage board

Question 2

Issue

Answer 2

whether a minimum wage law for women in the district of Columbia violates the due process clause of the 5th amendment

Question 3

Holding

Answer 3

held 5-3 (sutherland writing) that gender differences do not justify protective legislation regarding wages

Question 4

Sutherland arguments (1)

Answer 4

• protective legislation justified if a group needs protection
• now that they can vote = have liberty of contract, right to seek their own employment
• only physical differences may justify protection
• Women used to be treated as the equivalent of children -too immature to have the right to vote
• still means that gov cannot dictate a floor for wages → women can do this just as men

Question 5

Sutherland arguments (2)

Answer 5

law is forced charity

• wage = not about their welfare, and morality, safety and health → women can do this by themselves → Give them the benefit of the doubt
• no need give to give them money

Question 6

Sutherland arguments (3)

Answer 6

Law undermines women’s rights
-if you put a minimum on the amount of money they can earn then you have the power to put a maximum bar on the money they can earn as well

Question 7

Holmes’ Argument (1) = dissent

Answer 7

• Payment = hourly wage/ hours worked = muller
  
  • does not understand the principle on which the power to fix a minimum for the wages of women can be defined by those who admit the power to fix a maximum for their work hours

Question 8

Holmes’ Argument (2) = dissent

Answer 8

Equality

• if gov has to intervene on behalf of one side at the expense of business owners
• if women deserve special protection → are in disfavored position in terms of their ability to negotiate → in disadvantage in terms of power in workplace + physical differences between the genders
• sutherland dismisses this → physical differences related for hours but not for the price/money they get for working
• the law used to treat women the way law treats children → too immature to excerise certain rights → this is no longer the case → equally able to step up to plate and haggle for equal wages
  
  • holmes → agrees with majority opinion in Mugler → while progress is being made doesn’t mean gov is no longer justified in steping in and ensuring that women do not get taken advantage of

Question 9

Holmes’ Argument (3) = dissent

Answer 9

Isn’t charity

• he thinks its forced charity → gov reaching into pockets of employers ⇒ giving it to women even though she has not earned it
• holmes = endorsing the idea of a living wage
  
  • not forced charity because you do not have to hire wome, you do not have to give them any gift → requirement → if you do this you have to do it the right way
    
    • Sutherland argument