Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 10 views

    Dominican Hotel v. Arizona

    Uploaded by

    Salvador III V. Santos
    The defendant hotel challenged an Arizona statute that prohibited women from working more than 8 hours within a 12 hour period as a violation of equal protection. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, finding that the legislature could reasonably distinguish between restaurants located on railroad property, which were exempt, and other businesses. The Court stated that equal protection does not require all occupations with the same name to be treated identically, and that drawing lines where there are degrees of distinction is inevitable in law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dominican Hotel v. Arizona

    Uploaded by

    Salvador III V. Santos
    10 views1 page
    The defendant hotel challenged an Arizona statute that prohibited women from working more than 8 hours within a 12 hour period as a violation of equal protection. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, finding that the legislature could reasonably distinguish between restaurants located on railroad property, which were exempt, and other businesses. The Court stated that equal protection does not require all occupations with the same name to be treated identically, and that drawing lines where there are degrees of distinction is inevitable in law.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant hotel challenged an Arizona statute that prohibited women from working more than 8 hours within a 12 hour period as a violation of equal protection. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, finding that the legislature could reasonably distinguish between restaurants located on railroad property, which were exempt, and other businesses. The Court stated that equal protection does not require all occupations with the same name to be treated identically, and that drawing lines where there are degrees of distinction is inevitable in law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    10 views1 page

    Dominican Hotel v. Arizona

    Uploaded by

    Salvador III V. Santos
    The defendant hotel challenged an Arizona statute that prohibited women from working more than 8 hours within a 12 hour period as a violation of equal protection. The Supreme Court upheld the statute, finding that the legislature could reasonably distinguish between restaurants located on railroad property, which were exempt, and other businesses. The Court stated that equal protection does not require all occupations with the same name to be treated identically, and that drawing lines where there are degrees of distinction is inevitable in law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    49 US 265 March 24, 1919

    Dominican Hotel v. Arizona


    Facts:
    ● 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
    provides 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 applicable to railroad restaurants or eating houses
    located upon railroad rights of way and operated by or under contract with any railroad
    company." (Penal Code of Arizona § 717.)
    ● The defendant, by demurrer and otherwise, set up that the exceptions in the statute made it void
    under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as depriving the
    defendant of the equal protection of the laws.

    Issue: WON the said act is a violation of equal protection of the laws. (NO)

    Ruling:
    ● The equal protection of the laws does not mean that all occupations that are called by the same
    name must be treated in the same way. The power of the state "may be determined by degrees
    of evil or exercised in cases where detriment is specially experienced.”
    ● whether we can say, on our judicial knowledge, that the Legislature of Arizona could not have
    had any reasonable ground for believing that there were such public considerations for the
    distinction made by the present law.
    ● In the present case, the main custom of restaurants upon railroad rights of way comes from
    the passengers upon trains that stop to allow them to eat. The work must be adjusted to the
    hours of the trains. This fact is practical and it may be an important distinction between
    such restaurants and others. If, in its theory, the distinction is justifiable, as for all that we
    know it is, the fact that some cases, including the plaintiff's, are very near to the line makes it
    none the worse. That is the inevitable result of drawing a line where the distinctions are
    distinctions of degree, and the constant business of the law is to draw such lines.
    ● "Upholding the Act as embodying a principle generally fair and doing as nearly equal
    justice as can be expected seems to import that, if a particular case of hardship arises
    under it in its natural and ordinary application, that hardship must be borne as one of the
    imperfections of human things." Hence, the Judgment is affirmed.

    You might also like