Opinion ID: 775824
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Historical Record

Text: 52 There can be no doubt that our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684 (1973) (plurality opinion) (quoted in Virginia, 518 U.S. at 531); see also Kimel, 528 U.S. at 83 (recognizing a history of purposeful unequal treatment on the basis of gender). That history underlies the modern jurisprudence recounted above, requiring [p]arties who seek to defend gender-based government action [to] demonstrate an `exceedingly persuasive justification' for that action. Virginia, 518 U.S. at 531. Because [t]oday's skeptical scrutiny of official action denying rights or opportunities based on sex responds to volumes of history[,] id. , some detailed consideration of relevant aspects of that history is useful in evaluating the appropriate role of Congress when acting under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to end sex discrimination. 53 In the employment context, from the beginning of our Nation's history until at least the 1970's, state laws supported a regime in which men and women were assigned, respectively, roles as workers and homemakers. State labor legislation, in the guise of protecting women, played a major role in limiting women's access to the workplace -and concomitantly, in discouraging the involvement of men in domestic duties, including caring for children and relatives. 54 Before 1969, every state had some form of labor legislation protective of women only. 12 Judith A. Baer, The Chains of Protection: The Judicial Response to Women's Labor Legislation 4 (1978) (hereinafter Chains of Protection). By 1917, thirty-eight states had laws limiting in some way the hours that women -but not men -could work for wages. Barbara Allen Babcock et al., Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies 247 (1975) (hereinafterCauses and Remedies); see also Muller v. Oregon , 208 U.S. 412, 419 n.1 (1908) (listing -and approving -laws from 19 states limiting the hours that women could work). And, as is true of the other sex discriminatory laws discussed below, hours laws remained on the books well into the second half of the 20th century. See, e.g., Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 193 n.7 (1974) (Pennsylvania and New York laws not repealed until 1969, and had continuing impact thereafter on women's wages); Rosenfeld v. So. Pac. Co., 293 F. Supp. 1219 (C.D. Cal. 1968). 55 Hours laws took two forms: A majority of states enacted laws setting a maximum number of hours that women could work in certain industries, without so legislating for men. People v. Elerding, 98 N.E. 982, 985 (Ill. 1912) (stating that by 1912, twenty-seven states had adopted such laws). 13 Maximum hours laws barred women from earning overtime and hindered women's employment opportunities by excluding them from jobs requiring overtime. Wendy W. Williams, The Equality Crisis: Some Reflections on Culture, Courts, and Feminism, 14 Women's Rts. L. Rep. 151, 170 n.114 (1992) (hereinafter Equality Crisis). 56 Other state laws prohibited the employment of women--but, again, not men -during night hours. People v. Charles Schweinler Press, 214 N.Y. 395, 404 (N.Y. 1915) (affirming a law prohibiting women from working in factories at night, and noting that by 1913 nine other states had passed such laws). 14 Night hour laws precluded women not only from working night shift jobs but also from obtaining more desirable day shift jobs that required employees initially to work night hours. Equality Crisis at 170 n.114. 57 States legislatures also limited women's employment opportunities by placing a restriction on the amount of weight that women (but not men) could lift on the job, 15 and by prohibiting women (but again, not men) from cleaning moving machinery, Chains of Protection at 31 (fourteen machinery laws by 1908). Likewise, state laws requiring that women receive lunch breaks or rest periods made women less desirable employees than men. 16 58 Between 1912 and 1923, fifteen states passed minimum wage laws for women only. Causes and Remedies 247. 17 As the Supreme Court recognized, prescribing of minimum wages for women alone . . . restrain[ed] them in competition with men and tend[ed] arbitrarily to deprive them of employment and a fair chance to find work. New York ex rel. Tipaldo, 298 U.S. at 617. 18 59 State laws also barred women from certain occupations, either by outright prohibitions or by refusing to grant women necessary licenses. The occupations from which some states excluded women completely included the practice of law, 19 working as a bartender or in an establishment selling liquor, 20 mining, 21 and wrestling. 22 60 In addition, state laws providing that widows, but not widowers, automatically received workers' compensation or similar benefits at the death of a working spouse 23 discriminated against women workers because of the offensive assumption . . . that male workers' earnings are vital to the support of their families, while the earnings of female wage earners do not significantly contribute to their families' support. Wengler, 446 U.S. at 142 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 24 61 In upholding the discriminatory laws described above, state courts made clear that the basis, and validity, of such laws lay in stereotypical beliefs about the appropriate roles of men and women. 25 For instance, in upholding an hours law, the Supreme Court of Illinois relied upon the need for women to conserve their energy for the proper discharge of the maternal functions and the maintenance of the home. Elerding, 98 N.E. at 985. The Supreme Court of Nebraska found similar legislation valid because of its concern that if women worked longer hours in the workplace they would be incapable of bearing their share of the burdens of the family and the home. Wenham, 91 N.W. at 425 (quoted in Muller, 85 P. at 857). Likewise, the Court of Appeals of New York noted that night work interfered with the peculiar functions which have been imposed upon [women] by nature. Charles Schweinler Press, 214 N.Y. at 400-03, 405-06. The legislature was justified in enacting the night hours law not only for women's sake, said the New York court, but, as is and ought to be constantly and legitimately emphasized, for the sake of the children whom a great majority of them will be called on to bear. Id. 26 62 Such judgments have attended, and impeded, women's progress toward full citizenship stature throughout our Nation's history. Virginia, 518 U.S. at 542. Although the FMLA's legislative history does not specifically recount this background, as we hold above, when our nation's judicial history already documents unconstitutional discrimination against the class at issue, there is no need for Congress, separately and redundantly, to provide detailed findings of such discrimination in order to exercise its Fourteenth Amendment powers. See Garrett, 531 U.S. at 375-76 (Kennedy, J., concurring) (If the States had been transgressing the Fourteenth Amendment by their mistreatment or lack of concern for those with impairments, one would have expected to find in decisions of the courts of the States and also the courts of the United States extensive litigation and discussion of the constitutional violations.). 27 63