300 U.S. 379 (1937)
In 1913 the State of Washington enacted a statute entitled An Act to establish a minimum wage for women and minors.1 The law created an Industrial Welfare Commission.2 A later statute transferred its duties to an Industrial Welfare Committee consisting of the Director of Labor and Industries, the Supervisor of Industrial Insurance, the Supervisor of Industrial Relations, the Industrial Statistician and the Supervisor of Women in Industry.3
The statute required the commission to investigate wages and conditions of labor for women and minors.4 It required public hearings.5 When wages were found inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living and maintain workers in health, the commission was to convene conferences of employers, employees and public representatives before issuing obligatory orders fixing minimum wages.6 Special licenses were authorized for physically defective or apprentice workers at lower rates.7 The statute had remained in force for more than twenty-three years by the time of the present litigation.8
Elsie Parrish was employed by the West Coast Hotel Company as a chambermaid.9 She and her husband brought suit against the company to recover the difference between the wages actually paid and the minimum wage.10 The minimum wage was $14.50 per week of 48 hours fixed by the Industrial Welfare Committee pursuant to the statute.11 The company had paid her less than the prescribed minimum during her employment.12
The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court judgment, sustained the statute, and directed entry of judgment for the plaintiffs.13
The West Coast Hotel Company appealed to the United States Supreme Court.14 The appeal brought before the Court the question of the constitutional validity of the Washington minimum wage statute.15 The Washington law was substantially identical to minimum wage statutes enacted in Oregon in the same year.16 Similar laws had been adopted in the District of Columbia in 1918 and in other states during the same period.17
Whether the minimum wage law of the State of Washington violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?18
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects liberty, including freedom of contract, but that liberty is not absolute; it is subject to reasonable state regulation adopted in the public interest to protect health, safety, morals, and welfare, and such regulation satisfies due process when it bears a reasonable relation to its subject and is not arbitrary.19
No. The Washington statute, enacted in 1913 and remaining in force for over twenty-three years, created an Industrial Welfare Commission later succeeded by an Industrial Welfare Committee to investigate wages and conditions of labor for women and minors, hold public hearings, and issue obligatory minimum wage orders after conference with employers, employees, and the public when wages were found inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living and maintain workers in health.20 Elsie Parrish, employed as a chambermaid by the West Coast Hotel Company, was paid less than the $14.50 weekly minimum for a 48-hour week fixed under the statute, and she and her husband sued to recover the difference.21 The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court judgment and upheld the statute.22 The statute is reasonable in relation to its subject because it protects the health and welfare of women and minors who often have unequal bargaining power, provides procedural safeguards through investigation and conference, and authorizes special licenses for apprentices and the physically defective.23 These features align with the established principle that the state may regulate employer-employee contracts to prevent exploitation and the resulting burden on the community, as illustrated by precedents sustaining hour limitations and other employment regulations.24 The statute therefore constitutes a valid exercise of the police power and does not violate the Due Process Clause.25
The Court further determined that Adkins v. Children's Hospital should be overruled because its reasoning departed from the proper application of due process principles to protective labor legislation.26
The minimum wage law of the State of Washington does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.27
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Van Devanter, Mcreynolds, And Butler, Jj.
Justice Sutherland dissented on the ground that the Washington statute is in every substantial respect identical to the District of Columbia statute held invalid in Adkins v. Children's Hospital.28 He maintained that Adkins correctly recognized that freedom of contract is part of the liberty protected by due process.29 Minimum wage legislation constitutes an arbitrary interference with that liberty because it fixes wages without regard to the value of services rendered, the employer's ability to pay, or periods of business depression.30
He maintained that the Adkins decision had been followed in subsequent cases including Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo and should not be overruled.31 The statute is not a health measure but a naked wage-fixing law.32
The majority's reliance on changed economic conditions improperly treats the Constitution as alterable by judicial reinterpretation rather than by amendment.33