《合同法阅读材料五》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《合同法阅读材料五（16页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、WEST COAST HOTEL CO. V. PARRISH , 300 U.S. 379 (1937) 300 U.S. 379 WEST COAST HOTEL CO. v. PARRISH et ux. No. 293. Argued Dec. 16, 17, 1936. Decided March 29, 1937. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish 300 U.S. 379 (1937) 300 U.S. 379 , 380 Messrs
2、. E. L. Skeel and John W. Roberts, both of Seattle, Wash., for appellant. Messrs. W. A. Toner, of Olympia, Wash., and 300 U.S. 379 , 381 Sam M. Driver, of Wenatchee, Wash., for appellees. 300 U.S. 379 , 386 Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES delivered the opinion of the Court. This case presents the question
3、of the constitutional validity of the minimum wage law of the state of Washington. The act, entitled Minimum Wages for Women, authorizes the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors. Laws 1913 (Washington) c. 174, p. 602, Remingtons Rev.Stat.(1932) 7623 et seq. It provides: Section 1. The welfar
4、e of the State of Washington demands that women and minors be protected from conditions of labor which have a pernicious effect on their health and norals. The State of Washington, therefore, exercising herein its police and sovereign power declares that inadequate wages and unsanitary conditions of
5、 labor exert such pernicious effect. Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful to employ women or minors in any industry or occupation within the State of Washington under conditions of labor detrimental to their health or morals; and it shall be unlawful to employ 300 U.S. 379 , 387 women workers in any industr
6、y within the State of Washington at wages which are not adequate for their maintenance. Sec. 3. There is hereby created a commission to be known as the Industrial Welfare Commission for the State of Washington, to establish such standards of wages and conditions of labor for women and minors employe
7、d within the State of Washington, as shall be held hereunder to be reasonable and not detrimental to health and morals, and which shall be sufficient for the decent maintenance of women. Further provisions required the commission to ascertain the wages and conditions of labor of women and minors wit
8、hin the state. Public hearings were to be held. If after investigation the commission found that in any occupation, trade, or industry the wages paid to women were inadequate to supply them necessary cost of living and to maintain the workers in health, the commission was empowered to call a confere
9、nce of representatives of employers and employees together with disinterested persons representing the public. The conference was to recommend to the commission, on its request, an estimate of a minimum wage adequate for the purpose above stated, and on the approval of such a recommendation it becam
10、e the duty of the commission to issue an obligatory order fixing minimum wages. Any such order might be reopened and the question reconsidered with the aid of the former conference or a new one. Special licenses were authorized for the employment of women who were physically defective or crippled by
11、 age or otherwise, and also for apprentices, at less than the prescribed minimum wage. By a later act the Industrial Welfare Commission was abolished and its duties were assigned to the Industrial Welfare Committee consisting of the Director of Labor and Industries, the Supervisor of Industrial Insu
12、rance, 300 U.S. 379 , 388 the Supervisor of Industrial Relations, theIndustrial Statistician, and the Supervisor of Women in Industry. Laws 1921 (Washington) c. 7, p. 12, Remingtons Rev.Stat.(1932) 10840, 10893. The appellant conducts a hotel. The appellee Elsie Parrish was employed as a chambermaid
13、 and (with her husband) brought this suit to recover the difference between the wages paid her and the minimum wage fixed pursuant to the state law. The minimum wage was $14.50 per week of 48 hours. The appellant challenged the act as repugnant to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment o
14、f the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court of the state, reversing the trial court, sustained the statute and directed judgment for the plaintiffs. Parrish v. West Coast Hotel Co., 185 Wash. 581, 55 P.(2d) 1083. The case is here on appeal. The appellant relies upon the decision of th
15、is Court in Adkins v. Childrens Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 24 A.L.R. 1238, which held invalid the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Act (40 Stat. 960) which was attacked under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. On the argument at bar, counsel for the appellees attempted to distinguish the A
16、dkins Case upon the ground that the appellee was employed in a hotel and that the business of an innkeeper was affected with a public interest. That effort at distinction is obviously futile, as it appears that in one of the cases ruled by the Adkins opinion the employee was a woman employed as an elevator operator in a hotel. Adkins v. Lyons, 261 U.S. 525 , at page 542, 395, 24 A.L
