-
Bradwell v. Illininois
Bradwell v. Inninois was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 1873 and upheld a state's refusal to allow women to obtain a license to practice law. In a concurring opinion Justice Joseph P. Bradley articulated the widely held view that the "natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life." -
First Woman Tries a Case Before SCOTUS
In 1879, through special Congressional legislation, Belva Lockwood becomes first woman admitted to try a case before the Supreme Court. -
Muller v. Oregon
Muller vs. Oregon, decided in 1908, upheld a statue that imposed a ten-hour limitation on the amount of time women could work in a single day, based on assumptions that sexes' different physical capacity and reproductive roles. -
Radice v. New York
In Radice v. New York, a New York state case upholds law forbidding waitresses from working night shift but makes exception for entertainers and ladies' room attendants. -
National Industrial Recovery Act
The National Recovery Act forbids more than one family member from holding a government job, resulting in many women losing their jobs. -
Fair Labor Standards Act
In 1938 the Fair Labor Standards Act established minimum wage without regard to sex. -
Goesart v. Cleary
In 1948 Anne R. Davidow argued before the U.S. Supreme Court the significant women’s rights case of Goesaert v. Cleary. The case contested a Michigan law which prohibited women from working as bartenders unless their fathers or husbands owned the bar. Davidow raised the point that sex discrimination violated women’s constitutional rights by denying them equal protection and treatment under the law. -
Equal Pay Act of 1963
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 guarantees men and women equal pay for equal work. Equal work is defined as "jobs the performance of which requires equal skills, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conitions." -
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating in the "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" based on the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. -
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp
The Martin Marietta Corporation had a policy which did not allow the hiring of mothers with pre-school aged children because they were assumed to be unreliable employees;Ida Phillips, a mother, applied for a job at the company and was denied because of her circumstance as a mother. Phillips sued under Title VII claiming that the policy was discriminatory. The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Marietta Corp. policy did discriminate on the basis of sex. -
Orr v. Orr
U.S. Supreme Court declared Alabama's alimony statutes unconstitutional because they were based on a gender sterotype of female dependency, and because an individual determination of need was not administratively burdensome. In writing for the majority, Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. maintained that under the Equal Protection Clause, "classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives." -
Personnel Administrator of Massachussets v. Feeney
Mass. had a state law which gave an “absolute lifetime” preference to veterans over non-veterans for civil service positions. Feeney sued, arguing that the State Statute was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it favored men over womenThe Supreme Court's decision upheld the constitutionality of a state law giving hiring preference to veterans over non-veterans. -
EEOC v. Madison Community Unit School District No. 12
Te Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Madison Community Unit School District No. 12 set forth concerns whether high school coaches of female athletic teams must be paid the same as the coaches of male athletic teams. -
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
The plaintiff, Ann Hopkins, claimed she was postponed promotion to partnership at the firm for two years in a row based on sex-stereotyping against her gender nonconformity. The firm admitted that Hopkins was qualified and probably would have been admitted, but for her interpersonal problems (i.e., they felt she needed to wear more make up, to walk and talk more femininely, etc.). The Supreme Court held that Price Waterhouse had illegally discriminated against Hopkins. -
Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schor & Solis-Cohen
In Ezold, the plantiff alleged that she was not promoted to partnership in a law firm because of her sex; the firm claimed that she was not promoted because of a lack of ability and other qualifications. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and ruled in favor of the law firm.
