The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1924-01-24

in many of the cases the broad rule is
laid down that contracts having ten
dency to restrain marriage are void
on grounds of public policy, there
seems to be tendency to limit the
operations of the rule to such re-
straints as are unreasonable having
regard to the relation of the parties
and the object of the contract. Where,
however, the restraint imposed is re-
garded as unreasonable, it is imma-
terial that the contract is only for
limited period.-R. c. L. Vol. 6 page
76s.
am unable to discover that the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin has
passed on precisely the question here
raised. In the case of State ex rel
Thompson VS.. Board of School Di-
rectors of the city of Milwaukee, 179
Wis. at page 2s4, this situation was
presented:
Cites Milwaukee Case
In June, 1914, Elsie Diakerhoff COM
menced service as a te&eherl in the
public schools of the city of Milwau-
kee, being at that time unmarried.
In January, 1921, the school board
adopted the following rule:
Married women teachers shall not
be transferred, promoted or perman-
emily appointed to regular teaching
positions except in clearly attested
cases where the teacher becomes the
sole support of family by reason of
the death or incapacity of the husband
and that married teacher. shall be
known by her married name on all
school records and printed matter
On March 5, 1921, Elsie married.
She made no report of her marriage
and continued for the rest of the
school year and signed the school rec
ords with her maiden name. Prior
to the commencement of the school
work in September 1921, she reported
the fact of her marriage and was dis
missed on the ground that she had
previously signed her maiden name
to the school records after her mar
riage and in violation of the school
rules. She commenced action of man
damus against the school board. The
court held that the school, board had
no reason for discharging her on the
ground that there was no showing of
any wilful or intentional fouting of
the authority of the school board by
her, and no showing of any harm hav-
ing arisen by reason of her failure to
Immediately notify the school board
of her status as an unmarried to that
of a married woman.
However, the question in this case
was not raised upon a contract con-
tanning the clause in question, but
merely upon the adoption of the rule
during the term of service of the
teacher.
Court Sidesteps Question:
The court specifically says that it
does not pass upon the validity of the
rule adopted, in the following Ian
guage:
Assuming for the present DISPOSE
tion of this case that the rule adopt
ed by the board of school directors in
1921 relating to the transfer, promo
tion or permanent appointment of
women teachers who are married and
the name that such teacher shall be
known by on all school records and
printed matter is valid regulation,
the validity, however, we do not de-
termine, nevertheless, we feel con-
strained to hold that the facts as pre-
scented in this record will not and do
not support finding that there was
neither misconduct or inattention to
duty by the teacher such as warrant
ed the severe penalty inflicted by the
determination of the school board in
this particular instance.
The contract in question as we'll as
the rule upon which it is founded, ap-
plies only to women. Under Section
6.015 of the Statutes women are given
the same rights and privileges under
the law as men in the exercise of suf
frage, freedom of contract, etc, etc.
1t is my opinion that the rule con-
tanned in Section IA, Article ", is
illegal and invalid and that the clauses
of the contract hereinbefore quoted are
illegal and void and of no effect, and
it is recommended that. Section IA,
Article " be repealed and that the
clauses in question be removed from
all teachers contracts.
Respectfully submitted
RICHARD P. CAVANAUGH,
Assistant City Attorney.