Dominion Hotel, Inc. v. Arizona
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ARIZONA. The case is stated in the opinion. The classification bears no relation to the purpose of the law. The undeniable effect of the statute, as it was construed by the Arizona courts, is to impose upon some employers of female labor a restriction on their right to contract with their employees that is not imposed upon all employers of the same class.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OP THE STATE OP ARIZONA. The case is stated in the opinion. The classification bears no relation to the purpose of the law. The undeniable effect of the statute, as it was construed by the Arizona courts, is to impose upon some employers of female labor a restriction on their right to contract with their employees that is not imposed upon all employers of the same class. The plaintiff in error was held to be and now is guilty of a misdemeanor if it permits its waitresses to serve meals from 7 a. m. to 10 a. m., from 12 m. to 2 p. m., and from 6 p. m. to 8:30 p. m.,…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is an information alleging that the defendant, the plaintiff in error, was engaged in the hotel business and permitted a woman to work in the hotel for eight hours and that the “said eight hours of work was not then and there performed within a period of twelve hours,” with a denial that the defendant was within the exceptions made by the statute governing the case. The statute proyides as follows: “Provided further, that the said eight hour period of work shall be performed within a period of twelve hours, the period of twelve hours during which such labor must be performed not to be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Hebe Co. v. ShawSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Armour & Co. v. North DakotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
3Cited by106 opinions
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
- Salsburg v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- Walters v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- O'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Cases v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1942
101 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.